Written by I want my testimony recorded plainly: when I compare the character attributed to Yahweh in scripture with the Father revealed through Jesus, I do not recognize the same Father.
I recognize a contradiction that religious tradition taught me to overlook.
My conclusion is that Yahweh’s scriptural profile fails the standard of the Father of Truth. I identify that profile with the deceptive father Jesus condemns in John 8:44. That identification is my theological conclusion from the evidence below; I am documenting what brought me to it.
1. The profile begins before Jesus arrives
I do not need to invent accusations against Yahweh. The scriptures already attribute words, decisions, and actions to him.
Exodus 34:14 describes him as the Lord “whose name is Jealous.” Jealous is part of the identity presented in the text itself.
In Isaiah 45:7, Yahweh claims responsibility for light and darkness, peace and what the King James Version calls evil. Other translations render that last term calamity or disaster. The attribution of agency remains: the speaker claims responsibility for both sides of the contrast.
Then comes deception.
In 1 Kings 22:19–23, the heavenly council narrative portrays Yahweh approving a spirit’s proposal to deceive Ahab through his prophets. In Ezekiel 14:9, Yahweh claims responsibility for deceiving or inducing a prophet, then announces punishment against that prophet. These passages place deceptive agency within the divine government they describe.
That is the record I am examining.
My standard is straightforward: I cannot recognize the deliberate authorization of falsehood as the character of the Father of Truth.
Calling the actor divine does not settle the moral question. It creates the question.
2. Jesus challenges their claim to his Father
Read John 8 in sequence.
In verse 19, Jesus says his opponents know neither him nor his Father.
In verse 38, he distinguishes what he has seen with his Father from what they have seen with theirs.
In verse 41, they claim one Father—God.
In verse 42, Jesus answers conditionally: if God were their Father, they would love him.
In verse 44, he identifies their father as the devil, characterized by murder and falsehood.
In verse 45, he connects their unbelief to his truthfulness.
Then read verses 54 and 55 together. Jesus refers to his Father as the one they claim as their God, immediately adding that they have not known him. Their profession of belonging does not establish their knowledge or their character.
I understand whom these opponents claimed to worship: Israel’s God, Yahweh. I read Jesus’s confrontation alongside that inherited divine profile. My conclusion is that the deception attributed to Yahweh corresponds to the lying-father character Jesus condemns.
I am stating that conclusion openly.
3. The accusation includes shutting people out
Matthew 23:13 records Jesus accusing scribes and Pharisees of shutting the kingdom of heaven against people: they do not enter, and they obstruct those attempting to enter.
Religious authority is therefore subject to judgment. Possessing scripture, teaching law, and claiming divine authorization do not establish that someone represents the Father.
To me, this is central: the people claiming authority over access to God can become the people obstructing that access.
4. The tenants recognized the indictment
In Matthew 21, Jesus tells of tenants who abuse the owner’s servants and kill his son. The narrative explicitly says the chief priests and Pharisees understood that he was speaking about them.
Their recognition matters. The story confronts custodians who behave as though stewardship gives them ownership, even when the owner’s son arrives.
I see that confrontation alongside the closed kingdom and the disputed fatherhood of John 8: authority claimed, truth resisted, the son rejected.
5. This is where I stand
I reject the identification of Yahweh with the Father of Truth because I cannot reconcile the deception attributed to him with the standard by which I recognize the Father.
My testimony concerns a divine profile and the religious authorities confronted in these narratives. It assigns no inherited guilt to Jewish people or to anyone born into a religious community.
I will not exempt a claimed god from examination because generations have called him God.
I will read the attributed words. I will examine the attributed actions. I will compare the character.
This is what I see: the Father of Truth cannot be established by protecting a record of deception from the judgment of truth.
That is my testimony.
— Diesel the Magus