Critics and Criticisms

Notice: The original recording had some gaps, and several hundred words missing, especially from 11:28 to 13:16. These gaps were in the original recording as it had been recorded, and there is no explanation since there were no evident spaces in the recording itself. The recording software must have been freezing intermittently for this to have occurred.  So I have made a new recording, posted on Sunday afteroon at about 5:45 PM, and that now appears here for download, as well as in the player above. Doing that, I have also amended some of the notes below. - William Finck

The Watchman, a Critical Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

There are two general attitudes which are prevalent among Identity Christians towards politics and the economic, social, demographical and political circumstances in the United States today, and also in others of the nations which were formerly known as Christendom. The first attitude is conservatism. Those who have this attitude hope that somehow the nation can prevent a disastrous meltdown, that politicians can fix things, that they can stop the slide to oblivion, or at least, slow it down. But this is not what the Scripture warns, as the apostle Peter had professed, in 2 Peter chapter 3, “7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” That is the only fitting judgment for Sodom.

Often, people who fashion themselves as conservatives take such a position because they are selfish, or self-preserving; because they want to hold onto and enjoy the things which they have, and retire comfortably to a life of leisure. Identity Christians with these attitudes may not admit it, but it is fully apparent in their social media profiles and their ongoing participation in the political process. They know what the Word of God says in the prophets and the Revelation, they know the world is worthy of His wrath and judgment, but they just don’t want it to happen in their own lifetimes so they put their faith in men, rather than in God.

Destroying Many by Peace, A Critical Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

While we love Bertrand Comparet for his many simple and straightforward exhibitions of Christian Identity beliefs in light of Scripture, and while his conclusions or insights into current events were often also good, sometimes he had an altruistic and naive view of history. So while many of our race even today are indeed being destroyed by peace, or even by “love”, perhaps it was Comparet’s altruistic attitude towards his own people and nation that led him to express certain naive sentiments concerning the history of that nation. While we certainly all have some blind spots in our views of historical events, here in the opening paragraph of his sermon on this subject, Destroying Many by Peace, that naivete is fully apparent. But sometimes Comparet did express the fact that America was led by corrupt politicians. Sometimes he expressed the fact that Adolf Hitler was often lied about, and that the so-called holocaust never happened, and he even called it a myth, which is true.

So in Part 11 of his Revelation sermons, as well as in his Your Heritage sermon, Comparet professed that the holocaust is a myth. In his sermon Babylon’s Money, Comparet rightly acknowledged that the cause of World War Two was the Jewish struggle to regain control of the German economy which Hitler had taken from them, and he even went so far as to say that by separating the Jews and retaking control of the economy, that “Hitler was starting to put into operation some of the laws of Yahweh and he was proving that, in spite of this Jewish boycott, Germany could become prosperous, by going back to the economic laws of Yahweh.” Comparet defended Hitler in other ways in Part 13 of his Revelation sermons, and then in his sermon on The Rod of Yahweh's Anger he lamented the fact that the United States had allied with the tyrannical Soviet Union against Hitler and Mussolini, describing it as an act of “hypocritical self righteousness”, which is also correct, at least on the surface of the issues involved. However here, as he opens this sermon by speaking of America’s wars, for some reason he portrays them generally as having been just, when most of them certainly had not been just.

In Partnership with Yahweh, A Critical Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Not counting his commentary series on the Revelation, which we do not plan to critique here, there are nearly 130 sermons posted at the Bertrand Comparet archive at Christogenea. Now, over these past few years, we have already critiqued about a third of them, and we have greatly expanded on more than a few, such as his sermons on Ruth and Esther, and especially his sermon on Christianity in the Old Testament. Our first critique of his work was his sermon on Esther, which we discussed over three of our own presentations in the Spring of 2015, and we have presented commentary on about three dozen of his other sermons since then.

To us this undertaking is important, because for so many Identity Christians, Bertrand Comparet’s work provided a foundation for their understanding of Scripture and was instrumental in helping them to develop a basis for the substance of their faith. Therefore, if we take our faith seriously, that basis must be continually contemplated, measured against Scripture, and if one tenet or another is not upheld by Scripture then we must allow ourselves to be corrected. As we read in the 119th Psalm: “12 Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. 13 With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. 14 I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. 15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. 16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.”

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 4 - Our Rebuttal to a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

We have now taken three of these presentations to both present and critique the entirety of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Is it Enough Merely to be an Israelite?, which is contrary to our own view of Scripture, and, at least in our own opinion, we have discredited all of his arguments and all of his witnesses as either being inaccurate or as being irrelevant to the subject of eternal life. As we have seen, all of Comparet’s examples from Scripture concerned only temporal punishment or salvation, whereas he was errantly using them in a context which disputed the basis for eternal salvation.

But it is not sufficient merely to deconstruct what we believe are some of Bertrand Comparet’s errors, without offering support for our own position. So we also offered an allegory as we closed our arguments against him, that since he was a lawyer and we have cross-examined all of his witnesses, now we would present our own case. As we proceed, we shall also provide proof texts which inform us that these are indeed two separate issues, that eternal salvation and temporal salvation are two different subjects. It would be a joy to have Comparet here to cross-examine our witnesses, but of course that is not possible.

So here we shall present our own point of view, and our own witnesses which inform us that it certainly is enough merely to be an Israelite in order to attain eternal salvation. But that alone does not mean that there will be any reward in that salvation, so in our rebuttal we added the question, But enough for what? We will discuss that here as well, even if the full implications are not revealed to us in Scripture. As the apostle John wrote in chapter 3 of his first epistle, “2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” In this area especially, we cannot claim to know anything more than what John had known.

Here we shall continue our presentation and critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Is it Enough Merely to be an Israelite?, but doing so I will probably have to repeat myself at least a few times. That is because Comparet opened his sermon by criticizing Paul of Tarsus in Romans chapter 11, where Paul had properly paraphrased the prophet Isaiah and said “all Israel shall be saved”, yet Paul was speaking of the salvation of the spirit and eternal life, within the context that temporal salvation may not be attained, whereas all of the examples by which Comparet attempts to refute him relate only to the temporal salvation of the flesh or the nation. Disagreeing with Paul where he said “All Israel shall be saved”, Comparet mentioned not one of the many promises of eternal salvation, resurrection, or redemption from death and the grave which are found in either the Old or New Testaments. He only mentioned Isaiah 45:17 while criticizing Paul, and neglected to note Isaiah 45:25, or perhaps he may have realized that he could not have justly criticized Paul.

But Comparet was a trained attorney, and an attorney is never going to introduce evidence which hurts his case. Here he has tried to make a case that Paul of Tarsus was wrong, and that all Israel shall not be saved, and it is our endeavor to defend Paul and his statement. So now, as he continues, while there are indeed many good ideas found throughout his sermon, he only provides examples, some of them quite lengthy, of temporal punishment and temporary deliverance. But those examples do not relate to any of the promises of eternal salvation found in Scripture, and it seems as if, at least in this sermon, Comparet completely failed to distinguish between the two, and to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 2

As we had seen in Part 1 of our critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Is it Enough Merely to be an Israelite?, he had clearly taken Romans 11:26 out of the context of the epistle itself so that he could critique Paul, and he even accused Paul of having misquoted scripture. Then he denied the veracity of Paul’s statement that “All Israel shall be saved” where he compared it to Isaiah 45:17, while he ignored Isaiah 45:25. While for many other reasons we may love Bertrand Comparet, this approach to scripture is what even he himself had professed to have rejected, and he must be corrected. If we truly believe Yahweh our God, and if we love Yahshua Christ, then we shall seek to reconcile and understand all of Scripture, without ever assuming that one verse can cancel out another, or that we can arbitrarily pick a favorite and ignore others.

In Romans chapter 9 Paul began by praying for his kinsmen according to the flesh, those who truly were of Israel, as opposed to the Edomites in Judaea for which he had then contrasted Jacob and Esau. Continuing at the beginning of Romans chapter 10, he continued his prayer where he addressed his Roman readers and said “1 Brethren, truly the preference of my heart, and supplication to Yahweh is for preservation on their behalf. 2 I attest to them that they have zeal for Yahweh, but not in accordance with full knowledge.” So there he was still speaking of his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, of those true Israelites in Judaea for which he had prayed in chapter 9.

Apparently VLC on Windows, which I have used to apply metadata for years, has been ruining podcasts. But only some listeners had problems while others did not. So once again, I have resampled and uploaded a new file, as of 11:30 AM on the 22nd. Thank you for your patience! 

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 1

The medieval Roman Catholic paradigm relating to salvation and heaven, or judgment and hell, has been ingrained into all modern Christian theology to such a degree, having been imbued into our thought from perhaps as long ago as 1,800 years, that it may be one of the most difficult errors of Roman Catholicism to overcome. But it really cannot be overcome at all, until one learns the proper differences between the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, and can identify the good race of fish in the parable of the net. While Bertrand Comparet did know those differences, in my opinion he nevertheless had not fully thought them out in other areas of Scripture, and especially in this area. But we can forgive him, since the subject of salvation and the common perception concerning salvation is probably the deepest rabbit hole in Scripture. No matter how many times one may read the promises to the fathers and the words of Christ, there is always that one verse by which one may imagine that a child of God may ultimately and eternally be cast into the pits of hell, or the Lake of Fire.

Treasure in Earthen Vessels, A Review of a Sermon by Wesley Swift

It is relatively easy for a Christian to maintain his faith and to profess his beliefs so long as he enjoys worldly comforts, and so long as his faith is never really tried. But once some trial does come along, there is a very real danger that a man may forsake his beliefs and run off into some heresy, thereby being tried all the more, and in the long run, exposing himself to an even much greater degree of suffering and anguish. This year we have had several friends who have lost loved ones, and we have also lost several friends. We will miss them, but we have comfort in the fact that they are not truly lost. As Christians, we have an assurance, and we of all others should know with confidence, that all of our true friends are alive in Christ, that if we are in Him, we shall all one day be reunited. As Paul of Tarsus wrote in Romans chapter 6, “5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection…”

However one event troubles us greatly, that one dear friend has fallen off in despair at the sudden loss of a loved one, and had also questioned why he suffered such a trial in spite of his service to our Christian Identity community. So we are afraid that in his pursuit of the unknowable, because my own answers to him did not seem to satisfy his demands for knowledge, that he has either abandoned his faith completely, or has gone off into some heresy. Therefore, while we share the grief of our friend, we also grieve for him, because we are afraid that we have lost him. It is one thing if he turned away from us, but it is a terrible thing if he turned away from God. Peter himself had warned of the trials which we would face in spite of our faith, in chapter 4 of his first epistle: “12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: 13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”

The Sea and the Waves Roaring

A supposedly “scientific” academic study conducted by researchers from Harvard, Duke, Stanford and other institutions and recently published by Elsevier at the company’s sciencedirect.com website, is titled Reparations for Black American descendants of persons enslaved in the U.S. and their potential impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In the opening sentence of its abstract, the study claims that “In the United States, Black Americans are suffering from a significantly disproportionate incidence of COVID-19. Going beyond mere epidemiological tallying, the potential for racial-justice interventions, including reparations payments, to ameliorate these disparities has not been adequately explored.” So the study set out to prove that slavery reparations would save Negros from this supposed virus which has caused a non-existent plague, and without a doubt, science is actively being fabricated to support Jewish identity politics, which are anti-White identity politics.

The “Little Horn” of Daniel chapter 7, a review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

In his monthly Watchman’s Teaching Letters for 2002, Clifton Emahiser had sought to explain elements of the books of the prophet Daniel and the Revelation in an endeavor to refute the fallacies of what we call Futurism and Preterism, and to demonstrate the importance of the historical, or Historicist interpretation of prophecy as a key to understanding the Word of Yahweh our God. Doing that, Clifton had many other digressions as he progressed, and he discussed the two different descriptions of a “little horn” in Daniel in different ways. This shorter paper, The "Little Horn" of Daniel 7:8, was compiled from those studies.

Among denominational Christians, there are many foolish ways to interpret Scripture, and many ways to describe or label them. There is futurism, full preterism, partial preterism, millennialism or chiliasm, amillennialism or chillegorism, premillennialism and postmillennialism, and some of these overlap or encompass one another. There are even panmillennialists, who apparently believe that in the end, eschatology is not important at all because evidently, they also believe that everyone gets a participation trophy from God.

Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide

We are in Bristol, Tennessee this week, and while I was pondering what to present for this evening, and considering the circumstances which made our travel necessary in the first place, I could think of nothing more appropriate than a critical review of Bertrand Comparet's sermon, Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide .

Before preparing for this presentation, it had probably been at least 22 years since I read this sermon. When I did, I was quite disappointed in many ways which shall become evident as I proceed. While we love Bertrand Comparet, and while he was certainly a notable pioneer trailblazing our path to Christian Identity truth, he nevertheless maintained some critical errors, and they are evident in the conflicts which we shall find here in his own words. So I pray that a critique of this sermon also illustrates the need that we continually examine ourselves, because when something is true, it should be able to withstand all challenges.

As nearly all of our copies of Bertrand Comparet's sermons, this one was taken from Jeanne Snyder's transcriptions which were published under the title Your Heritage, and digitized and prepared for electronic publication by Clifton Emahiser, who had also added some of his own notes. Here in this particular sermon Clifton added only one brief note, which I will insert at the appropriate point. Of course, since this is a critical review, I will also add much of my own commentary.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 24: Nailing the Coffin

This final portion of our address of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine? may be anticlimactic. We have already witnessed and explained why Charles Weisman is truly not a Christian. We have already elucidated his many contradictions, and we hope to have fully exposed his many outright lies and misrepresentations of Scripture, and now that we near the conclusion of his book, we hope that he is already buried. But if not, then perhaps here we can drive the final nail in the coffin.

Up to this point in Chapter 6 of Weisman’s book, we have seen his attempt to explain psychological reasons for the existence of our Two-Seedline doctrine, and he ascribed a lot of reasons to its existence which all boil down to our needing excuses for blaming Jews for our woes, rather than blaming ourselves. But that too is a straw man argument, because we do not blame Jews for our woes. Rather, we blame sinful Whites who are caught up in all of the idolatry offered to them by Jews, and who have also accepted the antichrist teachings packaged under the umbrella of Liberalism. This is what has led us to accept not only Jews, but all of the other biological infestations of Yahweh’s Creation. So Jewish Supremacy and the imposition of Negros and all of the other races upon Christendom are a result of our problems, and not the actual cause of our problems.

But here Weisman also betrayed himself once again, where he spoke of Jews as a race and admitted that “Throughout all of history we have examples of Jewish hostility towards white Christians, and the harmful effects Jews have had on the European nations. They have clearly been as aliens in our midst destroying our way of life.”

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 23: Trees Good and Evil

We had started to address the portion of this final chapter of Weisman’s book under the subtitle “Elements of the Seedline Doctrine”, where we had left off with a discussion of the explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares provided by Christ Himself in Matthew chapter 23, as Weisman had mentioned the tares without elaboration. Evidently, Weisman took for granted the acceptance of his notion that tares were only tares because they were followers of the devil – as he had argued in another context on page 30 of his book – rather than being tares because they actually had been planted by the devil. Yet it must be the case, that the actual origin of the tares is with the devil, because as the apostle explained, Christ had come to reveal things kept secret from the foundation of the world. So if these things were kept secret for that long, since that very time which the Genesis account describes, then that is when the events must have actually occurred. The planting of tares among the wheat must be speaking in reference to the events described in a parable in Genesis chapter 3, and the subsequent scattering throughout the Adamic world of the children of Cain, the Rephaim – who are Nephilim – and other groups which may be associated with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Actually, it is a wonder to us that Weisman did not even mention the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares until this very point in his book, where he only made a passing reference to tares and said “The tares are apparently a satanic group of people.” But notice that he said group, and not race, however in that same paragraph Weisman had already spoken of “God’s people” and said that “Jesus spoke of ‘the tares’ or ‘children of the wicked,’ who were contrasted with the ‘good seed.’” So in that case Christ is telling us that their parents were wicked, and we see that He is speaking of a race of wicked people, not merely wicked individuals. In both cases in Matthew 13:38 the word for children is υἱός, which is a son, and the word for seed is σπέρμα, which is offspring. If the people of God are physical offspring of a particular individual, then the seed of the devil also must be physical offspring of a particular individual. Weisman could not offer an exegesis of the parable because doing so he would not have been able to conceal his blatant dishonesty.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 22: The Devil as a Psychobabbler

In Chapter 5 of his book, Weisman had attempted to smear our Christian Identity profession with claims that it came from Witchcraft, Gnosticism, Freemasonry, the Talmud, and the Kabbalah. But of course, all of these were actually Jewish, or heavily influenced by Jews, so he could have simply claimed that we got it from Jews. However we have proven throughout this series that our profession does indeed come from Scripture, and we have cited many Christian and non-Jewish sources to support it which are far older than the sources cited in Weisman’s allegations. Therefore all of these Jewish or Jewish-influenced philosophies actually began with basic truths and perverted them into lies, and as we also saw, their resulting lies are not at all similar to what we believe and demonstrate that the Bible teaches.

Now Weisman attempts to discredit us with another plainly Jewish tactic, which is a so-called “psychological study”. Since he denies the truth of Scripture, and even goes so far as to state that Christ was merely following along with Persian and Babylonian dualism, as well as reducing God Incarnate to the level of a common slanderer, he must imagine other and wicked reasons for the existence of our doctrine just like he claimed that there were other and wicked sources from which it originated. Here, Charles Weisman certainly is playing the role of a devil, which is a false accuser.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 21: Weisman’s Smear Tactics

Earlier in our review of his book, discussing his comments on page 23, we showed how statements by Weisman revealed that he himself did not believe that either Christ or His apostles had represented truth, as well as some of the later prophets, such as Zechariah. That was where he said that “The concept of a second god which caused evil in the world was primarily formed during the Exile (585-515 B.C.), being the result of Babylonian and Zoroastrian influence.” His statements in support of that claim ignored references to Satan, demons and devils which are found throughout the Old Testament, and then claimed that such passages in the New Testament are mistranslated or misinterpreted. Then further claiming that the serpent was “nullified by Christ”, he denied many statements of the apostles and of Christ Himself in His Revelation. So it became apparent that Weisman is not even a Christian.

Now here in this chapter, Weisman corroborated that conclusion once again, where he compared the labeling of certain people as serpents, devils and vipers in the New Testament to examples of the often unrighteous demonization of men throughout history, and said that “Since the Jews have long been the self-sworn enemy of Christendom, they have been portrayed by many Christians throughout history as being of a devilish origin. It is a small step, then, to make them out to be the literal descendants of the devil or satan.” Doing that, Weisman unabashedly demoted Yahshua Christ to the level of a common slanderer, rather than recognizing that God Incarnate was bringing the light of Truth to men. So once again, Weisman proved to us that he is no Christian.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 20: Witches, Warlocks and Weisman

Over the past 19 parts of this series addressing Charles Weisman’s book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, discussing his first four chapters of his book, we hope to have fully established the truths of our Seedline profession, and the fact that Charles Weisman misrepresented many things, and even made many outright lies, in order to attempt to refute those truths. Now we will continue to present the rest of Weisman’s book, as he wrongly believes that he has refuted our position and now he attempts to slander it, evidently hoping to forever discredit our doctrines. As we undertake this endeavor, we will try to avoid repeating much of the basis for our beliefs here, as we have already elaborated greatly on all of the basic reasons for believing in what is usually called Two-Seedline. But so that we can defend against his charges here, we may have to repeat some things we believe, and will try to do so without too much elaboration.

Here Weisman attempts to slander our Seedline doctrine by associating it with witchcraft, Gnosticism, Freemasonry, the Talmud, the rabbis of Judaism, and ultimately, the Kabbalah. But even this order of his own illustrations is deceptive, as we have demonstrated in our series on The Jews in Medieval Europe that Freemasonry was in large part founded on the Kabbalah, but the Kabbalah was not written until the 12th century, or perhaps the 13th, by a Jew in Spain. Of course, much of it was based on older systems, namely the Talmud and Medieval Neoplatonism, but the work has no authentic ancient authority. In turn, the Kabbalah is the link to witchcraft and alchemy in Medieval Europe, and in the time of John Dee the alchemists, who were all practitioners of Kabbalah, became Speculative Masons, and ultimately were admitted into the guilds of the Freemasons, whereafter Masonry became a tool in the hands of the Jewish Kabbalists by which to inculcate Christians into Jewish teachings and the accomplishment of Jewish objectives.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

Here we shall finally finish our presentation and discussion of Chapter 4 of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which he had titled The Role of Cain. Doing this, we shall attempt to summarize many of the things we found throughout our discussions, as Weisman consistently misread passages, purposely ignored the context of passages, twisting and even lying about Scripture in his attempts to deny the veracity of Two-Seedline. With our investigation of this one chapter having begun in part 9 of this series, we hope to have refuted Weisman comprehensively.

In our last presentation, we had left off where Weisman mischaracterized the relationship of Kenites with Israel at the time of king Saul, where he said “The Kenites were friendly to the Israelites.” There we had shown that from the time that Balaam prophesied about the Kenites in Numbers chapter 24, to the time of Saul, a period of nearly 450 years, there is only one mention of a single Kenite, and that referred to Heber, who was a Midianite smith in the days of Deborah and Barak, perhaps 400 years before the time of Saul. The Kenites not being mentioned again until for some unknown reason Saul had warned them to depart from Amalek, we see that Weisman had no basis for that statement. This is representative of the poor interpretations of Scripture offered by Weisman throughout this book.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 18: The Children of Cain

Here once again we shall continue with our series of presentations Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and this is part 18 of our endeavor. We believe that all along the way, through each of the first 17 parts of this series, we have shown that Charles Weisman depended upon an ignorance of history – purposeful or not – coupled with many misinterpretations of passages, seemingly intentional misreadings of passages, and even outright lies, in order to convince his readers that Two-Seedline teachings are in error.

We last left off with Charles Weisman’s claim that the serpent of Eden was the first murderer, the “murderer from the beginning” mentioned by Christ in John 8:44. Making that claim, Weisman evidently hoped to decouple interpretations of Matthew 24:34-35 from John 8:44, which together, along with an understanding of the history of Judaea over the decades leading up to the ministry of Christ certainly do prove that He was indeed speaking to descendants of Cain. We have shown conclusively that within the Biblical context, the serpent of Eden could not have been the first murderer, and that Cain alone was the first murderer.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

We have tarried with Charles Weisman’s prolonged disputations revolving around John 8:44 and Matthew 23:34-35 for several of these presentations, and we are still not through all of Weisman’s arguments in relation to these passages. Some of those arguments revolve around the question of who killed the prophets in the Old Testament. In that passage from Matthew chapter 23, Yahshua Christ declared that the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacharias will come upon a particular race. We would assert that according to the laws of God, that race must be guilty for the crimes for which it is going to be punished, or if the charge is false, then according to the law the individual making the charge must suffer the penalty. We cannot imagine that Christ our God was making false charges or acting contrary to His law.

In the actions of men and nations, there is collective guilt, and there is individual guilt. When one nation wars against another, the men who actually do the shooting are compelled by their rulers, and generally not motivated to commit murder on their own volition. If the war were unjust, the rulers would be guilty individually, although the nation which did their bidding would share collective guilt. Therefore Peter, in Acts chapter 2 addressing men of Judaea in reference to Christ had said “23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”. The wicked hands were not those of the Romans, but the Jews, those who stood in the Praetorium demanding of Pilate that He be crucified, leaving him no other alternative. But the nation as a whole shared a collective guilt for the deed as they had suffered (tolerated) wicked rulers.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 16, The Blessed and the Cursed

In our last presentation in this series, which was subtitled The Blood of Abel, we left off where Charles Weisman discussed the episode in Matthew chapter 23 where Christ had told His adversaries that their race would be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets, from Abel to Zacharias, which, discounting the interpolation in verse 35 we believe refers to the father of John the Baptist. We do not believe that it referred to the Old Testament prophet Zechariah as Christ had laid direct blame for the murder of this Zacharias on his adversaries, and not merely on their ancestors, where He said “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Here we will continue that discussion of Cain and those who are responsible for the death of Abel and the prophets, as we are not finished with the portion of this fourth chapter of Weisman’s book which concerns that subject.

Speaking of Abel, in Hebrews chapter 11 Paul of Tarsus had written: “4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” We have already discussed at length the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and provided Scriptures supporting the plausibility of our argument that the only reason Cain’s sacrifice was rejected is that Yahweh would not acknowledge Cain himself, Cain not even having been eligible to make such a sacrifice. But the only reason that Abel’s sacrifice was better lies in the mere fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice, by which he had asserted that he was indeed the eligible son.