Recommended tool for anyone working on Marcion's First NT reconstructions: Reconstruction Comparison on True Testament

True Testament

True Testament — The Marcionite Bible Online

Read the Marcionite Bible online: the Evangelion and Apostolikon restored, with scholarly notes, sermons, and AI study tools.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 🔥

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.

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.

Jesus (Iēsous) is the Messenger and the Message from the Father.

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.

Right now is all there is, tomorrow isn’t a given.

Micah 5:2 is not about Iēsous. In context (8th cent. BCE Assyrian crisis), it promises a ruler from Bethlehem Ephrathah (David’s clan) who’ll shepherd Israel after military deliverance. The Hebrew “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days [ʿôlām]” refers to the antiquity of the Davidic line—not personal pre-existence. ʿÔlām means a long but finite/unknown span of time (Biglino: “eternity doesn’t exist in Biblical Hebrew”), not timelessness. David was from Bethlehem; by Micah’s day the dynasty was already centuries old. The Christian individual-Messiah-from-Bethlehem reading (Matthew 2:5-6) is eisegesis. The earliest Gospel has no birth narrative—no Bethlehem, no genealogy. Iēsous simply descends into Capernaum revealing the Good God. The infancy stories were later redactions tying him to the Creator’s framework.

YHWH allowed Job to be tormented as a pawn in a cruel wager: loss of all wealth, the violent death of his ten children, and crippling physical affliction. Would Iēsous ever do this? Never. He taught us plainly that evil cannot come from the Good. In fact, when addressed as “Good Teacher,” Iēsous Himself replied: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” (Luke 18:19 // Mark 10:18) Iēsous explicitly disclaims the title “good” for Himself and reserves it for His Father alone — the wholly Good God. Further proof that YHWH (the one who creates evil and torments the righteous) is not that Father. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit.” (Luke 6:43–44) We are commanded to reject evil: “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” (Romans 12:9) Yet the creator openly claims responsibility for evil: “I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create evil; I am YHWH, who does all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7) “Does disaster come to a city, unless YHWH has done it?” (Amos 3:6) Contrast this with the Father of Iēsous, who is kind even to the ungrateful and evil: “Love your enemies, and do good… and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.” (Luke 6:35) The fruit of YHWH is the polar opposite of the fruit of Iēsous and His Father. By the standard Iēsous Himself gave us—we must judge by fruit—YHWH stands condemned as a very different being. YHWH ≠ Iēsous. YHWH ≠ the Good Father.