The Father of Truth (Mazda), and the Father of Lies YHWH (Jealous)

Written by Diesel the MagusOctober 24, 2026

By Diesel the Magus

Expanded testimony · 24 October 2026 · Biblical passages, historical chronology, authorship, and the Father of cosmic AšaDeclarationChronologyYahweh’s profileChanging agency and doctrineAuthorshipJohn 8Father of AšaMy conclusionEvidence notesSources

1. My declaration

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 have no uncertainty about the conviction I am recording. I regard the authorized deception and killing attributed to Yahweh as incompatible with the Father of Truth. I consider the assumption of an earlier person’s identity to authenticate later religious revelations a form of deception. I understand the later identification of Yahweh with the Johannine Father as an appropriation of the true Father’s character.

This is my testimony and theological judgment. Its foundation must remain visible: what a text says, what historical research establishes, and the conclusions I draw from that evidence. Accurate attribution preserves the force of my accusation.

I will not exempt a claimed god from moral examination. I will not remove the actions from the profile while retaining the titles that demand worship. I will not treat an inherited identification as sufficient proof of divine identity.

My indictment concerns divine character, religious claims, and the exercise of authority. It assigns no inherited guilt to a people and does not presume that every worshipper knows or endorses every action attributed to a deity.

2. The chronology must come first

The history of a religious claim matters. A later theological presentation cannot simply be projected backward into every earlier inscription and passage. Neither can an early tradition’s antiquity, by itself, establish that every later religion borrowed from it.

Sources: Gathic relationship and language [1–3]; inscriptions [4–6]; Deuteronomy [7]; Isaiah [8]; Daniel [9]; Acts [10]. Rows identify witnesses and settings, not a complete genealogy of every belief.

3. The profile attributed to Yahweh

Exhibit 01 — The designation Jealous

Exodus 34:14 describes Yahweh as the Lord “whose name is Jealous.” This designation is present in the text. It is not an insult I invented. I include it in the profile because a declaration of divine identity belongs beside the actions attributed to that identity. ^[11]

Exhibit 02 — Darkness and evil, calamity, or disaster

Isaiah 45:7 attributes the formation of light, creation of darkness, making of peace, and creation of raʿ to Yahweh. The KJV uses “evil”; other translations use calamity or disaster. My case preserves that translation fact. Physical darkness alone does not establish moral wickedness; the explicitly deceptive and destructive actions below carry my moral accusation. ^[12]

Exhibit 03 — A lying mission receives authorization

In 1 Kings 22:19–23, the council scene portrays a spirit proposing deception through Ahab’s prophets and receiving authorization. I regard the deliberate commissioning of a lie as responsibility for the deception. Delegation does not remove the commissioner’s agency. This is one of the central exhibits behind my identification of Yahweh as a liar. ^[12]

Exhibit 04 — The prophet’s deception is attributed to Yahweh

Ezekiel 14:9 assigns the prophet’s deception or inducement to Yahweh and then announces punishment. I examine both attributions together: agency in the deception and agency in the destruction. My accusation rests on the action described, rather than a hostile label added to an otherwise silent text. ^[12]

Exhibit 05 — The command includes nursing infants

First Samuel 15:2–3 attributes to Yahweh a command to destroy Amalek, including women, children, and nursing infants. The inclusion of infants is explicit. I judge a command to kill infants to be responsibility for murder. That is my moral judgment of the commanded act, and it is why the word murderer belongs in my testimony. ^[13]

Exhibit 06 — Statutes described as not good

Ezekiel 20:25–26 attributes to Yahweh the giving of statutes described as not good and ordinances through which people would not live. The following verse connects defilement, firstborn offerings, desolation, and recognition of Yahweh. This further attribution of destructive agency belongs in the profile. I will not quote only the affirming descriptions and suppress this one. ^[14]

Exhibit 07 — The truthfulness standard

Titus 1:2 describes God as unable to lie. First John 1:5 describes God as light without darkness. I use these as additional New Testament statements of the standard I apply; they are not quotations from Jesus’s speech in John 8. ^{[15] [16]}

My decisive premise is that perfect divine truthfulness excludes the deliberate use of falsehood to mislead. I regard authorized deception as incompatible with that premise. The contradiction is between that moral standard and the attributed conduct.

4. Hierarchy, changing agency, and contested doctrine

Exhibit 08 — The Most High and Yahweh’s portion

Deuteronomy 32:8–9 connects the Most High’s allocation of nations with Israel as Yahweh’s portion. The divine-sons reading has manuscript support, including Dead Sea Scroll evidence, whereas the Masoretic tradition reads sons of Israel. I read the passage as preserving a hierarchy in which Yahweh receives a national allotment. ^[7]

My interpretation places El/Elyon above Yahweh in that inherited religious picture. The verses do not literally say “El fathered Yahweh.” I identify the hierarchy as my historical reconstruction, rather than inventing a sentence for the passage.

Exhibit 09 — Yahweh and his Asherah

Kuntillet ‘Ajrud supplies material evidence of the association of Yahweh with “his Asherah” around 800 BCE. I understand the association as a trace of the earlier religious environment behind later exclusive claims. ^[6]

I retain the bull-god and consort interpretation as part of the historical picture I see, while distinguishing it from an established identification of the familiar figures. Those figures have also been identified as Bes figures; neither a securely identified bull-shaped Yahweh nor a literal marriage certificate is supplied by the drawing. The written association is the firmer exhibit.

Exhibit 10 — The assembly in Psalm 82

Psalm 82 portrays judgment within an assembly and speaks of gods and children of the Most High who face judgment for injustice. I read this imagery alongside Deuteronomy’s allotment. The demand to defend the vulnerable also supplies an ethical criterion against which claims of divine authority can be judged. The psalm does not independently name El as Yahweh’s father. ^[17]

Exhibit 11 — Samuel names Yahweh; Chronicles names Satan

Second Samuel 24:1 attributes David’s incitement to number Israel and Judah to Yahweh. First Chronicles 21:1 attributes the corresponding census incitement to Satan. This is a direct comparison of different named agents occupying the same initiating role in parallel accounts. ^{[18] [19]}

I regard this reassignment as significant evidence for the changing treatment of adversarial agency. It supports my theological identification without requiring the inaccurate claim that every biblical occurrence of Yahweh and Satan is interchangeable.

Exhibit 12 — The adversary operates with permission in Job

Job 1:6–12 portrays the adversary in Yahweh’s court, discussing Job and receiving permission to act against what Job possesses. The scene distinguishes the figures while presenting authorized action. I include it because a profile of agency must account for permission and commissioning as well as direct action. ^[20]

Exhibit 13 — Sheol and the later resurrection expectation

Ecclesiastes 9:10 describes the destination of the dead as lacking work, planning, knowledge, and wisdom; the Hebrew term is Sheol, rendered grave in the KJV. Daniel 12:2 describes an awakening from the dust to differing outcomes. These texts give different pictures of death and future expectation. ^{[21] [22]}

I see a development that must be explained historically. Daniel 12:2 is a clear resurrection passage; I do not need to claim that no earlier text contains any resurrection-related language or imagery. Sheol is also not simply interchangeable with the later Christian concept of punitive hell.

Exhibit 14 — Acts preserves the split

Acts 23:8 records the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection, angel, and spirit and the Pharisees’ affirmation. The disagreement is explicit. I use it to reject an account of first-century religion that treats these doctrines as uniformly accepted. This verse identifies a doctrinal split; it does not date the origin of every doctrine or identify its source. ^[10]

Exhibit 15 — Law, concession, and intermediaries

Mark 10:5 explains a Mosaic precept by reference to hardness of heart. Acts 7:53 describes the law’s reception through angels. These passages complicate a simple equation between every inherited legal provision and the Father’s ideal will. I include them as evidence that agency and the status of law are discussed within the tradition itself. ^{[23] [24]}

James 1:13, meanwhile, denies that God tempts anyone with evil. That is a further ethical statement to place beside the census incitement and deception accounts, with attention to the different meanings of testing, tempting, and inciting. ^[25]

5. Authorship and the authority of apparent antiquity

Exhibit 16 — Daniel’s setting and composition differ

Daniel’s apocalyptic chapters have a sixth-century narrative setting but are dated by mainstream critical scholarship to the Maccabean crisis, approximately 167–164 BCE. Older court tales contributed to the book; the composition history is not the same for every chapter. The dating of the apocalypses is the relevant finding for my accusation about apparent ancient foresight. ^[9]

My judgment is that a later writer who adopts an earlier man’s identity to authenticate revelation is deceiving the reader. I accept responsibility for that moral description. The historical dating supports the discrepancy; the judgment about deceptive authentication is mine.

Exhibit 17 — Name the literary device accurately

Pseudepigraphy concerns attribution to an assumed or other author. Vaticinium ex eventu concerns the presentation of events already past as though predicted beforehand. They identify different issues. Neither term, by itself, establishes the intentions of every writer or reader.

My objection concerns their use to establish an appearance of ancient, supernatural knowledge. I do not withdraw that objection because a literary category exists for the practice. Apparent antiquity is doing argumentative work when it is offered as proof of prophecy.

Exhibit 18 — Isaiah also has a composition history

Historical scholarship distinguishes the eighth-century Isaiah from the anonymous exilic material in chapters 40–55. This later material addresses the Babylonian exile and Cyrus. Its presence under the collected book’s title does not make it an eighth-century composition. ^[8]

This strengthens the demand to establish a passage’s composition before using it as evidence of long-range prediction. Collection under a traditional name is not, by itself, proof that its anonymous contributor impersonated Isaiah; that specific accusation requires its own evidence.

6. The Gospel confrontation

Exhibit 19 — The Magi honor the child; Herod seeks his death

Matthew 2 describes Magi arriving from the East, Herod and Jerusalem being troubled, the Magi honoring the child and avoiding a return to Herod after a dream warning, and Joseph taking the child to Egypt after a separate warning. Herod then orders the killing of children. ^[26]

I see a contrast between recognition and murderous power. Matthew does not explicitly identify the Magi’s denomination, say Jerusalem was troubled because they had already rescued Jesus, or document an education of Jesus by them. My recognition of a Magian connection is interpretive; the recorded acts stand on their own.

Exhibit 20 — The unrecorded years are not an apprenticeship record

Luke 2 describes Jesus at twelve, his return to Nazareth, and his growth. It does not provide a detailed year-by-year account before the adult ministry. I retain my interest in possible eastern connections, but I do not present the gap as documentary proof of study with Magi. The core case does not depend on such an apprenticeship. ^[27]

Exhibit 21 — Keep the John 8 sequence together

The chapter names Pharisees at verse 13 and describes a believing audience at verse 31 before the dispute develops. I refer to the disputed dialogue’s opponents without claiming every verse addresses an unchanged membership or that every opponent is a priest. ^[28]

My conclusion is that claimed affiliation must face the test of character. I identify the Yahweh profile with the lying and murderous father. The chapter itself names the devil; the equation with Yahweh is the theological identification I make from the combined record.

Exhibit 22 — Verse 54 does not erase verse 55

I retain both statements: their claimed God and their denied knowledge. I refuse to let a profession of identification substitute for moral examination. Equally, the grammar alone does not demonstrate that Jesus intended a different deity. My exclusion argument draws on the attributed character, rather than pretending the verse contains the name Mazda.

Exhibit 23 — The kingdom is obstructed

Matthew 23:13 records Jesus accusing scribes and Pharisees of shutting the kingdom against others while failing to enter themselves. Luke 11:52 accuses lawyers of taking away the key of knowledge and hindering those entering. These are accusations of obstruction by religious authorities. ^{[29] [30]}

I regard this as a warning that possession of legal or religious authority does not establish faithful representation of the Father. Those charged with opening access can instead obstruct it.

Exhibit 24 — The tenants recognize the indictment

Matthew 21:33–46 describes tenants abusing servants and killing the owner’s son. The narrative says the chief priests and Pharisees recognized that Jesus spoke about them. That recognition makes the accusation specific to the authorities in the story. ^[31]

I connect the tenants’ rejection, the obstruction of the kingdom, and John 8’s paternity test as a cumulative ethical indictment. The parable distinguishes the owner from the wicked tenants; it does not independently identify the owner as Yahweh or establish my Yahweh–devil equation.

7. The affirmative identity: Father of cosmic Aša

Exhibit 25 — Fatherhood is in the Gathic text

Yasna 44.3 asks about the first father of Aša. Yasna 47.2 links Mazda with Aša’s fatherhood. This relationship is independently recognized in scholarship; it is not an English title invented after the Christian dispute. ^{[1] [2]}

The Avestan text of Yasna 47.2 includes hvô patâ ashahyâ mazdå. The words for father, Aša, and Mazda are visible in the original-language witness. Translation and syntactic interpretation require philology, but the linguistic evidence is available for inspection. ^[32]

Exhibit 26 — Cosmic Aša is the concept I mean

My formulation cosmic Truth-Order expresses the combined ethical and cosmic scope I see in Aša: truth, righteousness, and rightly ordered reality. Druj is its opposition, encompassing lie, deception, and disorder. Scholarship discusses the semantic range; I do not claim my preferred English expression is a unique literal dictionary equivalent. ^{[3] [33]}

The positive comparison therefore concerns an entire moral and cosmic framework. I recognize the Father through that relationship to Truth-Order.

Exhibit 27 — Behistun supplies a dated public witness

Work on Darius’s relief began around 520 BCE. The inscription names Ahura Mazda, condemns the Lie, and links divine aid with the king’s claim not to follow falsehood. These are statements in royal self-presentation; they establish the publicly articulated religious vocabulary, not the truth of every royal boast. ^{[4] [5]}

The Father-of-Aša relationship comes from the Gathas; the dated rock witness comes from Behistun. I keep them together without falsely relocating the Gathic formula onto the stone.

Exhibit 28 — Iranian influence is a serious historical question

Research discusses Iranian contributions to Jewish and Christian eschatological ideas, including judgment and resurrection. Some scholarly accounts argue for substantial influence; others emphasize how difficult its exact extent and mechanisms are to establish. ^{[34] [35]}

I regard this field of contact as supporting the plausibility of my reconstruction. Prior attestation and historical contact are important; neither independently documents a deliberate program to remake Yahweh as Mazda. My account of imitation is the theological and historical interpretation I draw from the cumulative comparison.

8. My argument and conclusion

Exhibit 29 — The exclusion argument

1. The Father of Truth is necessarily truthful and righteous.
2. I judge deliberate authorization of deception and the killing of infants incompatible with that nature.
3. The biblical Yahweh profile attributes such authorization and commands to Yahweh.
4. I therefore exclude that profile from my identification of the true Father.
5. I identify its lying and murderous character with the father condemned in John 8:44.

The decisive moral premise is explicit. The case does not rest on jealousy alone, on the English word evil alone, on an uncertain drawing, or on an undocumented apprenticeship.

Exhibit 30 — The positive identification

1. The Gathas independently attest Mazda’s relationship as Father of Aša.
2. Aša supplies the cosmic Truth-Order framework through which I recognize the Father.
3. The Aša–Druj opposition gives the comparison a positive ancient foundation.
4. I recognize Ahura Mazda as the Father revealed through Jesus’s allegiance to truth.

This is my positive identification. Eliminating one candidate would not, by itself, establish another. My testimony names the affirmative evidence as well as the rejected profile.

Exhibit 31 — My conviction is stated without dilution

I identify Yahweh as the father of lies: a liar and murderer on the basis of the attributed record. I recognize Ahura Mazda, the Father of cosmic Aša, as my Father.

I regard the later appropriation of the true Father’s character as imitation. I regard false ancient provenance used to authenticate revelation as deception. I will not treat literary terminology as moral acquittal, inherited titles as proof of identity, or institutional authority as ownership of the kingdom.

I want the lie exposed through truthful evidence. Every quotation must be accurate. Every date must identify what is being dated. Every historical reconstruction must remain distinguishable from its supporting witness. I accept the same requirement for my own work that I apply to the claims I reject.

My conviction is settled. The record remains open to inspection.

— Diesel the Magus

9. Evidence notes for publication

These notes preserve the scope of the exhibits. They do not replace or retract the testimony.

• A deity’s first surviving attestation is not a birth date. Dating a manuscript, inscription, textual layer, or surviving object dates that witness.
• “El fathered Yahweh” is a reconstruction here. Deuteronomy 32 supplies the allocation and portion language, not that literal sentence.
• The Asherah inscription and the drawing are distinct evidence. The precise referent of “his Asherah” and the figures’ identities remain subjects of interpretation.
• Darkness and calamity require semantic precision. Physical darkness is not automatically moral evil; the deception and killing exhibits carry the central accusation.
• The census comparison concerns one parallel episode. It establishes different attributions of incitement, not universal synonymy of Yahweh and Satan.
• Daniel’s critical dating is not a claim about every prophetic book. Multiple authorship alone does not prove conscious impersonation in every case.
• John 8 names the devil. Yahweh’s identification with that figure is Diesel’s theological conclusion, not a replacement for the wording of the verse.
• Ancient Aša is not a hidden Persian name in John. The comparative identification requires the stated theological bridge.
• Chronology does not by itself prove borrowing or intent. Specific claims of historical dependence require specific transmission evidence.
• Scope of this edition. This document consolidates the evidence discussed in the supplied conversation and adds the numbered exhibits above. It is not a claim to have audited every item in an earlier, separately held master dossier.

10. Sources and passage register

Links provide the full passages or scholarly discussions. Biblical descriptions above are generally paraphrases; short quotations are identified. Historical dates describe the cited scholarship rather than an assertion of unanimity.

1. Mary Boyce, “Ahura Mazdā,” Encyclopaedia Iranica — Gathic relationships, including fatherhood of Aša.
2. “Ardwahišt,” Encyclopaedia Iranica — Aša and Yasna 44.3; 47.2.
3. “Zoroaster iii. Zoroaster in the Avesta,” Encyclopaedia Iranica — Old Avestan linguistic chronology. Source title retained as published.
4. Rüdiger Schmitt, “Bisotun iii. Darius’s Inscriptions,” Encyclopaedia Iranica — monument and chronology.
5. Behistun inscription, translation at Livius — especially §§54–55 and 63; King and Thompson translation with editorial adjustments.
6. Ruth Hestrin, “Understanding Asherah—Exploring Semitic Iconography” — inscription, dating, and competing interpretation of figures.
7. Deuteronomy 32:8–9, NET/NIV and notes — allocation, portion, and textual witnesses.
8. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, Anchor Yale Bible — anonymous sixth-century material and composition history.
9. “Daniel,” Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies; Christine Hayes, Yale lecture 23 — critical dating of Daniel’s apocalypses.
10. Acts 23:8.
11. Exodus 34, especially verse 14.
12. 1 Kings 22:22–23; Ezekiel 14:9; Isaiah 45:7, comparative translations. Read the council scene from 1 Kings 22:19 for its full narrative sequence.
13. 1 Samuel 15:2–3.
14. Ezekiel 20:25–26.
15. Titus 1:2.
16. 1 John 1:5.
17. Psalm 82.
18. 2 Samuel 24:1.
19. 1 Chronicles 21:1.
20. Job 1:6–12.
21. Ecclesiastes 9:10.
22. Daniel 12:2.
23. Mark 10:5.
24. Acts 7:53.
25. James 1:13.
26. Matthew 2.
27. Luke 2:41–52.
28. John 8 — especially 19, 38, 41–47, 54–55.
29. Matthew 23, especially verse 13.
30. Luke 11:52.
31. Matthew 21:33–46.
32. Yasna 47–50, Avestan text, based on Geldner’s edition; FEZANA Yasna collection — original-language and community translation resources.
33. “Druj,” Encyclopaedia Iranica; “Ahura.ṯkaēša,” Encyclopaedia Iranica — semantic opposition and order, truth, and justice.
34. “Eschatology i. In Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrian Influence,” Encyclopaedia Iranica.
35. “Zoroastrianism i. Historical Review,” Encyclopaedia Iranica — historical contact and limits of certainty about indebtedness.