Written by I want my testimony heard in full.
I identify Yahweh as the father of lies and the murderous father condemned in John 8:44. I recognize Ahura Mazda, the Father of cosmic Aša, as the true Father.
I arrived at this conviction by examining the history, the attributed actions, and the changing theological claims. The documents are the evidence I examine; the identification is the conclusion I draw.
The history matters
I see Yahweh within an ancient religious world of divine assemblies, national patron gods, bull symbolism, and Asherah. I read Deuteronomy 32:8–9 as preserving a hierarchy in which the Most High distributes the nations and Israel becomes Yahweh’s allotted portion. In that reading, El is the father figure above the national deity.
At Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, around 800 BCE, inscriptions associate Yahweh with “his Asherah.” I understand this as evidence of a religious setting very different from the exclusive identity later claimed for him. The identification of particular drawings as a bull-shaped Yahweh and his consort remains disputed; the written association itself survives.
That history belongs in the profile. Later theology does not erase earlier evidence.
His attributed words and actions matter
Exodus calls his name Jealous. Isaiah attributes to him the creation of darkness and what the KJV calls evil, rendered calamity or disaster in other translations.
First Kings portrays him authorizing a lying spirit. Ezekiel attributes a prophet’s deception to him. First Samuel attributes to him a command to kill even nursing infants.
I judge those actions directly. I call authorizing deception responsibility for lies. I call commanding the killing of infants responsibility for murder.
I will not remove those actions from the profile while retaining the titles that demand worship.
The changing assignment of responsibility matters
Samuel attributes David’s incitement to take the census to Yahweh. Chronicles attributes the corresponding incitement to Satan. The same narrative role receives different named agents.
Job, meanwhile, depicts the adversary appearing in Yahweh’s court and receiving permission to act against Job.
I see these passages as evidence that the relationship between divine authority, accusation, suffering, and evil underwent theological development. I refuse to treat the final arrangement as though every earlier text already expressed it.
Sheol and the resurrection dispute matter
Ecclesiastes 9:10 describes the destination of the dead as lacking work, knowledge, and wisdom. That portrayal must be read alongside later resurrection expectations.
Acts 23:8 explicitly records a division: the Sadducees deny resurrection, angel, and spirit, while the Pharisees affirm them. The disagreement survives inside the Christian scriptures themselves.
For me, this is evidence against presenting the tradition as one unchanged theological system.
The authorship of Daniel matters
Critical scholarship dates Daniel’s apocalyptic chapters to approximately 167–164 BCE, despite their sixth-century narrative setting.
My moral judgment is plain: when a later writer assumes an earlier man’s identity and presents already known events as that man’s supernatural foresight, I consider that a lie.
Pseudepigraphy names the assumed authorship. Vaticinium ex eventu names prediction written after the event. Neither expression cancels my objection to the authority created by the false appearance of antiquity.
The Father of Aša matters
The Gathas already describe Ahura Mazda as the Father of Aša. I understand cosmic Aša as Truth-Order: truth, righteousness, and rightly ordered reality opposed to the Lie.
This is the affirmative foundation of my testimony.
I see the later identification of Yahweh with the Johannine Father as an appropriation of the true Father’s character. I understand that development as imitation: a historically changing divine profile being identified with the Father whose nature I recognize through cosmic Aša.
That historical and theological connection is my conclusion. I state it openly and accept responsibility for it.
I identify Yahweh as the father of lies. I recognize Ahura Mazda as my Father. I will not surrender that distinction merely because a tradition insists that I merge them.
The inscriptions, manuscripts, dates, and attributed actions deserve examination. My testimony deserves to be recorded accurately.
For me, the lie has lost its authority.
— Diesel the Magus