Caleb ☧

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 apologise if I misunderstood your position. If I’m hearing you right, you’re not denying a historical Jesus existed, only that the gospels are mythological and Tacitus & Josephus add nothing new — merely recycling gospel rumours after they circulated. Even if late though, these remain independent non-Christian sources confirming core details: Jesus executed under Pontius Pilate. The burden still lies on proving direct dependence on gospel rumour/s, not shared tradition. Plus, Paul’s letters (50s CE) offer substantially earlier attestation. Gospels have theological shaping, but crucifixion under Pilate remains secure across critical scholarship. What evidence disproves the core claims about Jesus (Iēsous), even in those earlier NT sources?

The burden is NOT on me for any of that. Tacitus and Josephus do NOT tell us anything different than what was already circulating from the Gospels. They wrote AFTER the gospels are in circulation. There is no need for me to prove that. Αlso. Are you alright? Where did I ever say anything about Jesus not existing as a person? Where did I say ever on this thread that Tacitus and Josephus FABRICATED anything? Why are you moving the goalpost so far as to make me say things that I never wrote? Are you not comprehending what I am saying at all? Jesus can exist as a historical person and the gospels can still be full of mythology and claims that are not true.

Josephus wrote about Jesus in the 1st century

Dismissing Tacitus and Josephus as 'just repeating rumours from people who never met Jesus' is a claim that needs evidence. The burden is on you to show they relied on pure hearsay rather than Roman records (Tacitus, a senator) or Judean sources (Josephus). Critical scholars who reject Christian theology still affirm the historical Jesus — including agnostic Bart Ehrman (eg. Did Jesus Exist?), who calls the crucifixion under Pilate one of our most certain facts. Jewish scholars like Geza Vermes and secular historians broadly agree. These independent, non-Christian references ~60–80 years later are standard for a minor provincial figure — not 'rumours,' but the best evidence we can expect. What specific proof do you have that both authors fabricated or uncritically passed on a Christian invention?

You are missing the point. For one, the secondary sources for Alexander are based on PRIMARY sources that we still have fragments of and can corroborate with inscriptions and other data. For Jesus, you just have rumors written by people who NEVER MET Jesus. Tacitus is just repeating the same rumors that are in circulation. I did not say that Tacitus fabricated anything. I am just saying that Tacitus is not a reliable source for Jesus. He is just repeating the rumors that he heard and he only wrote a paragraph or two about Jesus. Same with Josephus in 96 CE. Just a few rumors, in one small paragraph, and even that is heavily edited by Christians because they diddn't like what he wrote.

Fair point, Alexander has contemporary traces (Babylonian Astronomical Diary, inscriptions). Yet his narratives (Callisthenes, Royal Journal) survive via Arrian & Plutarch centuries later—secondary sourcing we accept for ancient figures. For Jesus, no one expects coins or royal diaries from a crucified non-Roman citizen. Tacitus (hostile Roman senator) and Josephus (Jewish historian) corroborate the crucifixion under Pilate ~60–80 years later—not mere Gospel repetition. Critical scholars accept the core Josephus reference despite interpolations; 'Chrestus' is a known variant in the record, not an error. Celsus engaged the historical story while mocking Christian beliefs. What specific evidence do you have that Tacitus fabricated the Pilate reference, or that Josephus's core passage is a complete forgery—not just the partial interpolations most scholars accept?

No. You are wrong. Alexander the Great has primary sources that were written by people who traveled with him, such as Callisthenes, who wrote what is known as the “royal journal”. And this is the basis for the later books written about Alexander such as Arrian and Rufus. There are also coins, inscriptions and letters written that date to the time of Alexander’s life. Nothing like this exists for Jesus. Tacitus and Josephus are only repeating the same rumors he heard from the gospels. They are not giving new details that aren’t already circulating from Christians. Also Tacitus spells his name wrong and calls him “Chrestus”. The historians that study Josephus overwhelmingly agree as a consensus that the passage in Josephus is not fully authentic and was heavily interpolated and edited by Christian scribes post 4th century. So there are no credible historians writing about Jesus for at least a century after his death other than a few small passages that may either be interpolated by Christians or just unreliable random rumors. The first person to do an actual investigation into Christianity is Celsus around 130CE and he thought the entire story was laughable.

That’s correct — Josephus was born after Jesus’ death and wrote ~60 years later (c. 93 AD). But that’s excellent timing by ancient historiography standards for a non-elite provincial figure. Josephus, a Jewish-Roman historian with access to records and Judean knowledge, provides one of our strongest independent attestations: in Antiquities 18.3.3 he notes Pilate “condemned him to the cross” (core reference widely accepted by scholars despite some later interpolations). For comparison, this is far closer in time than Arrian or Plutarch’s accounts of Alexander the Great (300–500 years later), which no one seriously disputes. Tacitus (~80 years later) adds Roman confirmation. We evaluate ancient history by the available independent sources, not modern eyewitness requirements.

@ConsulofRome_ Josephus wasn't alive when Jesus was alive. He breifly mentions Jesus nearly 60 years after Jesus was dead.

I'm not assuming or 'needing' anything about Jesus' crucifixion — I simply shared independent non-biblical facts from Roman and Jewish historians. You're inserting motives I never expressed. For context, many widely accepted figures have far less evidence than this. Alexander the Great's detailed biographies (Arrian, Plutarch) were written 300–500 years after his death, yet no serious scholar doubts he existed. Tacitus wrote ~80 years after Jesus (~116 AD), which is strong by ancient standards for a provincial figure — especially as a senator with access to Roman records. The crucifixion under Pilate is independently attested by: - Tacitus (Annals 15.44) - Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, core accepted) - Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a: 'Yeshu' hanged on Passover eve) - Lucian ('crucified sage') This is standard historical method, not theology. Blood atonement is a separate religious debate.

@meCal3b I understand your reference and your need for Jesus to be crucified badly. But citing a reference which was written 100 years after the death of Jesus is fascinating. But that is what you have so i understand. HE WASN'T KILLED. Blood to cleanse sins is a pagan practice.

Why do you think Jesus came, died, and rose again?

Non-biblical sources confirm the Romans crucified Jesus under Pontius Pilate. Tacitus (Annals 15.44, c. 116 AD), hostile to Christians, wrote: 'Christus… suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during Tiberius' reign at the hands of our procurator, Pontius Pilatus.' Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, c. 93 AD): 'When Pilate… had condemned him to the cross…' (widely accepted despite later edits). The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) records 'Yeshu' was 'hanged' (often crucifixion) on Passover eve for sorcery and leading Israel astray—aligning with Gospel timing. Lucian of Samosata mocked Christians for worshipping their 'crucified sage.' Sceptic scholars agree: this is one of history's most secure facts—independent Roman and Jewish attestation. No Bible needed.

@meCal3b yes They did not execute him, neither did the Father in heaven sacrificed him to cleanse our sins. I know it will be difficult for you. The bible has been corrupted by Yahweh worshipers so you cant clearly find your answer there.

@bullish_ness You don’t believe Jesus was executed by the Roman Empire (at the request of the Pharisees)?

@meCal3b Neither did they kill him or crucified nor did he sacrifice himself. That was introduced to align with the pagan and satanic practice at the time, that blood cleanse sins. And to distort his message and trick humans into worshiping the very Yahweh(Lucifer) you are talking about.

Elah/Elohim of Israel is the jealous national elohim (Ex 20:3-5; 24:10). עַל־פָּנָי (al-panay) means “before my face / in my presence” — not “above” in rank. It enforces exclusive worship with curses, standard henotheism: one elohim among many, allotted Israel by Elyon (Deut 32:8-9). Preposition quibbles don’t alter the fruit: one demands loyalty under law/punishment, the other redeems freely.

@meCal3b Elah of Israel, not Elohim (Exodus 24:10). יהוה אלהי ישראל "You shall have no other gods before me" mistranslation: before -> above (על) אלהים אחרים על פני

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.

The texts have been ready for centuries. In Biblical Hebrew, el is the generic term for a divine being (e.g., 'a foreign el', Josh 24:19). elohim (plural form) functions as a singular title for YHWH—the Elohim of Israel—while acknowledging other real elohim in the Divine Council (Deut 32:8–9 / DSS Ps 82). Exod 20:3–5 ('no other gods before me... jealous El') only makes sense in this plural landscape. YHWH is one of the sons under Elyon, not the singular ontological 'only God' of the later dogma.

@meCal3b Is the conversation ready to use el as a generic singular yet?

YHWH/Elohim of Israel demands jealous exclusivity, cursing 'other gods' (Ex 20:3–5; Deut 6) — one Elohim among many allotted a nation (Deut 32:8–9). Jesus reveals an alien unknown Good Father who loves enemies without threat (Evangelion/Luke 6:27–28). No jealousy. No vengeance. Just unconditioned mercy. One rules by law & punishment; the other redeems from it. Early Christians saw the contrast clearly before orthodoxy merged them.

@meCal3b Bad take. You shall have no other gods before YHWH because He is King of Kings. He is the great I Am. He is the creator. YHWH chose Israel to display His power. A small nomadic group who’s God has stood the ages and crossed all ethnic and terrestrial boundaries

Church fathers like Tertullian & Epiphanius claimed Marcion 'mutilated' Luke & Paul's letters to fit his theology. The reality was that his Evangelion + Apostolikon preserve an earlier textual tradition. The 'cuts' they accused him of were likely the later orthodox additions that stitched in OT YHWH theology. Marcion didn't hack the Gospel — he safeguarded the pure Pauline message of grace before it was harmonised with the Law. Judge the fruit: mercy over merger.

No one can serve two masters. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 16:13) This teaching in the New Testament draws the unbreakable line between loyalty to the Good Father revealed in Christ and entanglement with Yahweh's material system of mammon, demanding total allegiance to grace.

🔥🤣

This tidbit of truth actually has incredible implications and importance to understanding the greater narrative of the whole text. If you don’t first see it, ask the Spirit to remove the veil, then look again. The text MUST trump dogma.

The “Father” in the Evangelion is the alien Good God — wholly merciful, revealed only through Jesus. He is not the Elohim of Hosea or the Davidic covenant. Importantly, Jesus’ quotation of Hosea 6:6 (“I desire mercy, not sacrifice”) is not present in the First Gospel (the Evangelion). That saying belongs to Matthew — the most judaized of the canonical Gospels, heavy with OT fulfilment formulas and Law-ties that were added later. The earlier Evangelion keeps the contrast: the Good Father shows unconditioned compassion and love for enemies, while YHWH's system (Hosea, Davidic covenant, etc.) remains tied to conditional law, kingship, land, and judgments. Jesus doesn’t merge the roles — he reveals a different Father. The tension exists because they are not the same. Judge the fruit, Theo.

@meCal3b The title of Father describes a role that could be characterised by mercy. Jesus referred to this role when he referenced Hosea 6:6. The role of mercy is also reflected in the Davidic covenant.

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.

@yellowbee0 Jesus (Iēsous) never said the Father/God of Israel was His Father or Himself.

@meCal3b Jesus claimed to be the Father

“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)