Written by Before You Testify About Your Father, Admit What Your Father Said
By Diesel the Magus
eFireTemple.com | October 24, 2026
I. THE CHALLENGE IS NOW OPEN
To everyone who identifies Yahweh as their God and Father:
I issue an open challenge.
Before you tell me who your Father is, before you tell me what he represents, before you instruct me to worship him, and before you claim that he is the Father of Jesus Christ, I challenge you to acknowledge two declarations preserved in your own scriptures.
First: Your Father is called Jealous.
Second: Your Father declares that he creates darkness and evil.
I did not write these statements.
I did not place them in your scriptures.
I did not invent the name Jealous.
And I did not put the words about creating darkness and evil into Isaiah.
These declarations are already in the book you present as sacred.
My challenge is simple.
Acknowledge the record before you attempt to explain it.
Until you can do that, I do not accept your testimony concerning your Father’s character as complete or credible.
And I will explain exactly why.
II. THE FIRST ADMISSION: HIS NAME IS JEALOUS
Exodus 34:14 — King James Version
“For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:”
Read it.
The name is in the verse.
Jealous.
I am not required to pretend the text says something else.
I am not required to replace that designation with a preferred theological title.
I am permitted to read the name and use it when discussing the deity described.
Therefore, my first challenge is this:
Will you acknowledge that Exodus 34:14 calls the God you worship Jealous?
Not what another author later called him.
Not what your religious institution prefers to emphasize.
What does this particular scripture say?
If you refuse even to acknowledge the designation preserved in your own sacred text, why should your testimony about that deity’s identity be considered reliable?
A witness who will not acknowledge an explicit identifying statement has not yet established the credibility of his testimony.
III. THE SECOND ADMISSION: HE CREATES DARKNESS AND EVIL
Isaiah 45:7 — King James Version
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
There it is.
The speaker claims responsibility for light and darkness, peace and evil.
The Hebrew raʿ has a semantic range that includes evil and calamity. That is a question of how the declaration should be understood—not whether the declaration exists.
The creation of darkness is explicit. The creation of raʿ is explicit. The claim of divine responsibility is explicit.
You may have an interpretation.
You may disagree with mine.
But before we debate the meaning, acknowledge the words.
That is the second challenge.
Will you acknowledge that Isaiah 45:7 presents Yahweh as declaring that he creates darkness and raʿ, rendered “evil” in the King James Version?
This is not a demand that you adopt my theological conclusions.
It is a demand that any testimony about Yahweh begin by admitting what the source actually attributes to him.
Because if you cannot acknowledge the declaration, how can you claim to give a complete account of the speaker?
IV. WHY YOUR TESTIMONY FAILS WITHOUT THESE ADMISSIONS
A credible witness must be willing to confront material evidence about the subject of his testimony.
Imagine a witness appearing before a court.
He claims to know a person intimately.
He insists the person possesses certain characteristics.
But when presented with that person’s recorded declarations, he refuses to acknowledge that the statements exist.
Would that witness be offering complete testimony?
No.
His account would be selective.
He would be presenting the character he wishes the court to accept while withholding parts of the actual record.
This is the standard I apply to claims about Yahweh.
If you tell me that Yahweh is your Father, but you refuse to acknowledge that Exodus calls him Jealous, your description is incomplete.
If you tell me that Yahweh is the source of perfect goodness, but you refuse to acknowledge Isaiah’s statement about darkness and evil, your description is incomplete.
If you claim that he cannot participate in deception while refusing to examine 1 Kings 22 and Ezekiel 14:9, your account has excluded relevant evidence.
And if you say his character cannot be associated with the taking of innocent life while refusing to examine 1 Samuel 15:3, you have declined to confront another part of the written record.
You cannot establish a complete divine-character profile by admitting only the passages you find favorable.
That is why I challenge the credibility of testimony that excludes the deity’s own attributed declarations.
Not because the believer has no right to speak.
Every believer has that right.
But the right to testify is not the same as having established a reliable account.
And an assertion of religious authority does not exempt a witness from examining contradictory evidence.
V. THE RECORD DOES NOT END WITH JEALOUSY AND DARKNESS
The challenge begins with two admissions.
But the complete investigation contains more.
In 1 Kings 22:19–23, Yahweh authorizes a spirit’s proposal to deceive Ahab through false prophecy.
In Ezekiel 14:9, the divine speaker claims responsibility for deceiving a prophet.
In 1 Samuel 15:3, the command attributed to Yahweh includes the killing of children and infants.
In 2 Samuel 24:1, David’s incitement is attributed to Yahweh.
In 1 Chronicles 21:1, the corresponding incitement is attributed to an adversary.
And in 2 Chronicles 18:18–22, the later Chronicler retains the account of Yahweh authorizing a lying spirit.
These are passages in the biblical record.
They are not accusations I invented.
They supply material for examining the identity and character attributed to Yahweh.
You may challenge my interpretation of these passages. But you cannot erase the passages from the record.
And I refuse to begin a theological discussion by pretending they are not there.
VI. JESUS ALREADY CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF DIVINE PATERNITY
Now read John 8 in sequence.
John 8:19.
Jesus tells his opponents that they do not know him or his Father.
John 8:41.
They claim to have one Father, God.
John 8:44.
Jesus identifies their operative spiritual father as the devil, characterized by murder and falsehood.
John 8:54.
Jesus refers to his Father as the one whom his opponents say is their God.
John 8:55.
Jesus again denies their knowledge of his Father.
Notice what the confrontation establishes.
A person’s claim to know God is not, by itself, proof that the person actually knows God.
The opponents make a claim of divine paternity.
Jesus challenges that claim.
He directs attention toward truthfulness, deeds, and actual knowledge.
The passage does not explicitly name Yahweh as the devil, nor does it explicitly identify Jesus’s Father as Ahura Mazda.
But it does establish the principle underlying my investigation:
A claimed religious identity must be tested rather than simply inherited.
Therefore, when someone claims to know the Father, I am entitled to examine the divine character that person asks me to recognize.
And when the earlier record attributes deception, destruction, jealousy, and the creation of darkness and evil to Yahweh, I am entitled to include those attributes in my evaluation.
You may call him your Father.
I am free to conclude he is not mine.
VII. MY FATHER IS THE FATHER OF AŠA
I do not leave the identity of my Father undecided.
My Father is Ahura Mazda.
The Father of Aša.
The Father of cosmic Truth-Order.
The Gathas of Zarathustra contain the ancient Father-of-Aša relationship, including the question of Aša’s primordial Father in Yasna 44.3.
Aša is not merely the absence of an ordinary lie.
It is Truth-Order: righteous reality, justice, and rightness in existence.
Opposed to Aša stands Druj—the Lie.
This ancient architecture existed many centuries before the Gospel of John was composed.
I am permitted to study that evidence.
I am permitted to recognize Ahura Mazda as my Father.
I am permitted to regard the actions attributed to Yahweh as incompatible with the divine character I recognize.
And I am permitted to say so publicly.
I do not demand that you abandon your Father.
I demand that you stop expecting me to accept your description of him without examining his recorded character.
Your testimony must be subjected to the same standard of truthfulness that you expect mine to satisfy.
VIII. THE FORMAL OPEN CHALLENGE
To anyone who claims Yahweh as their Father, I ask you to answer plainly:
Do you acknowledge that Exodus 34:14 calls Yahweh Jealous?
Do you acknowledge that Isaiah 45:7 records Yahweh declaring that he creates darkness and raʿ, translated “evil” in the King James Version?
Do you acknowledge that 1 Kings 22 portrays Yahweh authorizing a lying spirit?
Do you acknowledge that Ezekiel 14:9 attributes deception to Yahweh?
Do you acknowledge that the command in 1 Samuel 15:3 includes infants?
Do you acknowledge that 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 assign David’s incitement to different immediate agents?
These questions are not hidden.
The passages are public.
The evidence can be read by anyone.
And the challenge does not require agreement with my final theology before answering.
It requires something more basic.
Acknowledge the written record that you claim as your own.
Once you have done that, you may explain your interpretation.
Until then, I will not accept a selective description of Yahweh as a complete or authoritative testimony concerning his character.
IX. THE VERDICT ON THE TESTIMONY
The issue is not whether you are entitled to believe in Yahweh.
You are.
The issue is whether you are entitled to demand that I accept your testimony while refusing to confront the parts of the record that challenge it.
I reject that demand.
You cannot tell me the identity of a deity has been established while declining to acknowledge the identifying declarations preserved in the text.
You cannot insist that his character is beyond investigation.
And you cannot expect me to abandon my conscience simply because your theology declares the investigation unnecessary.
An incomplete witness is not an authoritative witness.
An inherited name is not proof of moral character.
A claim to know the Father is not proof of actual knowledge.
Jesus’s confrontation in John 8 already makes that last distinction unmistakable.
I am applying the same demand for truthfulness to those who would tell me whom I must worship.
I do not need their permission.
I do not require their agreement.
And I will not accept their religious claims as a substitute for examining the evidence.
X. THE CHALLENGE STANDS
His name is Jealous.
He claims to create darkness and evil in the King James rendering of Isaiah 45:7.
His biblical record includes authorized deception and commands involving the killing of children.
These are the exhibits.
I have placed them before you.
I challenge you to acknowledge them.
You may defend your interpretation afterward.
But you will not dictate which portions of the record I am permitted to read.
You will not decide which declarations I am permitted to quote.
And you will not tell me that I must recognize your Father as mine.
My Father is Ahura Mazda.
My Father is the Father of Aša.
I stand for cosmic Truth-Order.
And I will not surrender that conviction to a testimony that refuses to confront its own source documents.
The challenge is open.
The evidence is public.
Acknowledge the record before claiming authority over its meaning.
Aša knows Aša.
— Diesel the Magus
eFireTemple.com
Primary evidence
- Exodus 34:14 — The name Jealous.
- Isaiah 45:7 — Light, darkness, peace, and raʿ.
- 1 Kings 22:19–23 — Divine authorization of a lying spirit.
- Ezekiel 14:9 — Divine agency in deception.
- 1 Samuel 15:3 — The command against Amalek.
- 2 Samuel 24:1 — Yahweh’s incitement of David.
- 1 Chronicles 21:1 — The adversary’s incitement of David.
- 2 Chronicles 18:18–22 — The lying-spirit account retained.
- John 8:19, 41, 44, 54–55 — Divine paternity, knowledge, murder, and the Lie.
- Yasna 31.8 and 44.3 — The ancient Father-of-Aša relationship.
This challenge is addressed to the credibility of religious testimony and interpretations of ancient texts, not the dignity or rights of people who hold different religious beliefs.