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

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.

Doing this, we explained that in the epistle of Jude where the apostle refers to Enoch as “seventh from Adam” either Cain or Abel, but not both, must be counted in order for Jude to be correct, and the only appropriate choice is to imagine that Jude was counting Abel, as Seth was a replacement for him and not for Cain. Then in the second epistle of Peter where the apostle refers to Noah as the “eighth preacher of righteousness”, at least according to the original Greek, we see what office it was that Abel had laid claim to by his act of sacrificing, for which Cain could not be accepted. Yahweh challenged Cain to do good, and he immediately went and killed his brother, thereby proving that he was never eligible for that office, as “sin lieth at the door”, indicating that he was indeed a bastard.

Then in Hebrews chapter 12, speaking of Christ and beckoning his fellow Hebrews to come to Christ, Paul wrote: “22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”

But what did Paul mean by “Church of the firstborn”? Now it may be argued that since Christ was “firstborn among many brethren” then Paul is referring to His Church. However since Paul is writing in relation to the history of the Old Testament as well as the New, the phrase must transcend the new covenant in its meaning, to include all of the covenants which Yahweh God had made with Adamic man, all the way back to Genesis chapter 3, and that is demonstrated where Paul compared the sacrifice of Christ to the sacrifice of Abel. So discussing those passages in Jude and 2 Peter, we explained that the eldest son was traditionally the family priest, the eldest living son of Adam was the Melchizedek priest, the Preacher of Righteousness, as Peter called Noah, and that Abel was asserting that the position belonged to himself, not to Cain, so when Cain was rejected he slew him.

The fact that it was written in the Psalms that the Messiah would be a “priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”, being Yahweh God incarnate and the True Firstborn of our Adamic race, as Paul had also explained in that same epistle to the Hebrews, assures the veracity of our interpretation because it demonstrates a clear and consistent thread of thought from Genesis chapter 3 through the Revelation, from beginning to end. This Charles Weisman cannot do. In fact, Weisman is not even consistent with his own devices, with his own arguments, either from chapter to chapter or even within a single chapter, or paragraph, under a single subtitle. Here where he speaks of Cain and the murder of Abel, his inconsistencies are clearly manifest.

In Matthew chapter 23, if we exclude the apparent interpolation “son of Barachias”, Christ had told His adversaries, in part: “34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”

First, if Yahweh God is a righteous Judge and if He judges according to His Own law, which things are certainly true, then no descendant of Seth can justly be held responsible for the blood of Abel. Only Cain and his descendants could ever be held responsible for the blood of Abel. Secondly, the “you” in “whom ye slew” refers to the rulers and high priests of the Judaeans who opposed Christ, and it can be demonstrated in history, as we have also done here, that the preponderance of them, at least, were indeed partially descended from Cain through Canaan and Esau.

Next, since it is demonstrable that the adversaries of Christ were descended from Cain, we can see that where Christ had called the parents of His adversaries vipers, since He called them the offspring of vipers, and where He said that “All these things shall come upon this generation”, the word generation actually meaning race, He certainly must have been calling those who would be held responsible for these things a race of vipers, speaking of ancestors and descendants and crimes throughout history which were both near and remote.

Finally, while the Israelites themselves could be held responsible for the deaths of the prophets, we see that where they are charged with that, in places such as Jeremiah chapter 2, the reason for their sin was given to the fact that they had accepted race-mixing with the Canaanites, which is apparent in that same chapter and in other places, such as Ezekiel chapter 16. The ancient children of Israel were warned in the books of Moses, Joshua and Judges that if they accepted the Canaanites rather than driving them out, that they would be caused by them to sin, and Jeremiah chapter 2 and Ezekiel chapter 16, among others, are records of how they caused them to sin. Where we do see the prophets or priests of Yahweh being slain in the historical records of Scripture, aliens such as Doeg the Edomite, who was also an accuser of David and David was a prophet, or Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians were the chief instigators or the actual executioners. So the words of Christ are literally true, and we see that the descendants of Cain should be held responsible for the murder of the prophets, as only they can be held responsible for the murder of Abel.

Therefore our Two-Seedline interpretation of all of these words of Christ are indeed consistent with Scripture and history. But where Charles Weisman had attempted to interpret, or, more correctly, purposely misinterpret the words of Christ in that passage in Matthew, first he said:

The problem with this is that Jesus never said that these people or their ancestors killed Abel. He said that the blood of Abel and others was going to come upon them.

In the Old Testament, it is clear that one’s offspring has a share in one’s blessings, but also suffer on account of one’s sins. However in the law of God, if one is charged with a crime that he did not commit, the individual making the false charge would suffer the penalty. Therefore Christ could not have been accusing the descendants of Seth of having any liability for the blood of Abel. Yet that is what Weisman insists, and he makes th insistence without offering one shred of Scriptural evidence to support it. Next he said:

This is one of several instances in which Jesus foretold of a coming judgment upon the Israel nation.

But Christ did not say anything about the “Israel nation” here. He was speaking to His adversaries, and in reference to their parents and their race, and Weisman is inferring that He was speaking of the race of Israel, but that is not necessarily true, and we would assert that Weisman’s inference is wrong. So he continued and said:

In fact, it was a judgment upon Adamic man, of which Israel was the recognized heir and responsible party.

Here Weisman himself is playing the role of that serpent cast out of heaven in Revelation chapter 12, who is called “the accuser of our brethren”, as he accuses the entire Adamic race of being liable for a murder committed by Cain. But this we have also shown is a lie, as Seth and his descendants were never and could never be held responsible for the blood of Abel. However Weisman then made a crafty argument by which he excluded just about everyone whom he insisted already should bear the blame, and he said:

However, most Israelites were now divorced from God and no longer under the Old Covenant and thus could not be judged as a responsible heir.

First, as we also explained, the entire race of Adam was not held accountable for their sins where there was no law, as Paul had explained in chapter 5 of his epistle to the Romans. Yet the children of Israel who were put off in punishment were indeed under the judgments of the law, until the death of Christ, as Paul explained in Romans chapter 7. So when Christ spoke those words, the Old Testament Israelites and their descendants were all under the penalty of death in the law, but for reasons other than the slaying of Abel and the prophets, and that alone shows that Weisman is lying. As Paul said in Galatians, Christ had come “To redeem them that were under the law,” which included the Galatians, descendants of the Old Covenant Israelites but who were not Judaeans. So Weisman was lying where he said that they “could not be judged as a responsible heir.” They were indeed being punished for their disobedience under the Old Covenant, and remained liable to its punishments for that disobedience. Next, Weisman said:

But the Israelites in Judea were still under the old order, they were the last Israelites still answerable under the terms of the Old Covenant.

We also showed this to be a lie, since Yahweh Himself had pronounced the Old Covenant to be broken in Zechariah chapter 11, over 500 years before the birth of Christ. Furthermore, we explained that the Judaeans of the period of the second temple never had any propitiation for their sins, as there was no ark of the covenant or mercy seat that the offerings of propitiation required in accordance with the law. They were displaying a pretense of piety, going through the motions, but they could not complete an act of propitiation. So under the terms of the Old Covenant, they could no longer be granted mercy, and impending judgment remained. So they too had to await the manifestation of the promised New Covenant.

Now Weisman directly contradicts himself. He said the race of Adam was responsible for the death of Abel, which is a lie, and then he cunningly reduced that to Israel alone, and then further to the Judaeans alone, devising other lies. But now he reverts to his first position and says:

With the end of the old order and covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant, judgment needed to be rendered upon the Adamic race for that which it had done under the old order.

Yet Christ came, as we had shown that Paul had explained in Romans chapter 5, so that the children of Israel as well as the entire Adamic race would not be judged and condemned for their sins “under the old order”. But now Weisman is claiming that Christ came so that the Adamic race would be judged for their sins, for what they had done under the “old order.” So Weisman is nullifying the mercy and forgiveness which is found in Christ. If all of the sins of the children of Israel were forgiven on the cross of Christ, as the apostles had explained, and as it was promised in the prophets, and if sin was not imputed to Adam and his descendants where there was no law, as Paul also explained, then how does Weisman claim that “judgment needed to be rendered upon the Adamic race for that which it done under the old order”? His claim is the exact opposite of the Christian profession. His claim nullifies the very purpose of Christ, to bear all the sins of the children of Israel upon Himself, as it is stated by the apostles and prophets! So Weisman, is he a Jew, or a Christian? We can only conclude that he is a Jew.

Charles Weisman refuses to admit that Yahweh God has enemies, that those enemies are the same enemies from which the Adamic race and the children of Israel were promised salvation, for example as we see in Luke chapter 1, and then he transfers the statements of guilt and promises of punishment to those who are supposed to be saved, from those whom God has promised to destroy! In Weisman’s view of Scripture it is not sheep and goats, but only sheep who will all suffer the punishment of the goats.

Then where Weisman had contradicted himself and said that “judgment needed to be rendered upon the Adamic race”, he now contradicts himself again where he continues and says, in the very next sentence:

These Judaean Israelites were to bear the judgment for all the unlawful acts of murder committed, whether or not their direct ancestors had done them. This includes the murder of Abel by Cain because Cain was an Adamite.

Which is it? Adam, or Judaeans? Weisman narrowed the responsible parties from Adam to Israelites and Judaeans, and then to just Judaeans. Then he widened it again to Adamites, and now narrowed it again to Judaeans. So he continues to lie in his endeavor to obfuscate the truth, and all along the way he shares not one passage of Scripture which may support any of his contentions.

Then he insists that Cain was an Adamite, and therefore the entire Adamic race is condemned for the actions of Cain! This is what the Jews call chutzpah, and Weisman is absolutely insolent in his attempt to claim that any member of the race of Adam, of which all of the survivors come exclusively from Seth, is guilty of the blood of Abel.

Even if Cain were an Adamite, the descendants of Seth, who did not issue forth from Cain, could never be held responsible for the crimes of Cain. Yet Weisman purposely misread John 8:44, where Yahshua Christ had told His adversaries that they did come forth from Cain! Once that is understood, then the implications in this passage in Matthew chapter 23 are clear, so Weisman purposely refused to understand it, because he could not face those implications.

Here in Matthew chapter 23, Christ had referred to His adversaries as serpents, but to their parents as vipers, and then referred to their entire race when He told them that the judgment for these crimes would come upon them. So He must be referring to a race of serpents and vipers. In John 8:44 Christ told His adversaries that Cain was their father, as only Cain was a murderer from the beginning, but He also referred to Cain as a devil. The opponents of Christ understood that He was speaking in relation of the circumstances of their birth, and they denied it, however the prophets and the histories also show it to be true.

But how was Cain a devil? Cain was not a follower of the devil. Weisman insisted that Cain was a devil merely because he was a follower of the devil. But Cain was dejected, his countenance had fallen because he tried to make sacrifices to Yahweh, and his sacrifices were rejected. That shows that Cain was trying to be a follower of Yahweh rather than follow the devil! Weisman made insistences to the contrary, but once again he offered not one shred of Scriptural evidence to support his insistences. How is Cain a devil? We cannot answer that unless he was indeed of the seed of the serpent. Cain did not bring a sacrifice to the devil, but to God.

To us it is evident, that Genesis 4:1 is corrupt, as we have demonstrated with proofs of the problems described by both Hebrew and Greek interpreters, and Cain was indeed of the “seed of the serpent” which would be at enmity with the seed of the woman, the descendants of Adam, throughout history. While the children of Israel are guilty of their own sins, the descendants of Cain are the historical panderers of those sins, and that is the message in Moses and the prophets, who attributed the sins of Israel to the fact of their having accepted and mingled with the Canaanites. This is Two-Seedline, this is the parable of the wheat and the tares, this is the parable of the sheep and the goats, this is John chapter 8, and this is Matthew chapter 23. Weisman had tried his damnedest to corrupt this truth, and the only thing which is evident in that endeavor is his own damnation.

Page 37:

Now, continuing with the lies and deceit of Charles Weisman from where we had left off on page 37 of his book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, he claims:

God is merciful, however, and offered these Judeans a way to become a part of the New Covenant without harsh judgment brought upon them. They were given a choice: “repent or perish” (Luke 13:1-9). These verses foretell of judgment on the fig tree, which represented Israel. For those who did not repent, judgment came by way of death at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., or by way of a curse on the survivors. The fig tree Jesus cursed (Matt. 21:19) was symbolic of the fate of most of these people. Christ knew the hearts of these people and knew most would not repent and accept Him, as He said to them: “how can you escape the damnation of hell?”

Christ did know what was in the hearts of men, because, as John professed at the end of chapter 2 of his gospel, Christ “… knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” Christ, being God incarnate, knew who were Edomites and who were Israelites, who was a bastard and who was a son.

Here Weisman is lying because he is taking promises of mercy out of context and applying them to parties which were not promised mercy. In Matthew chapter 23 where Christ spoke about accountability for the blood of Abel He was speaking to His adversaries. There is no promise of mercy or forgiveness for the blood which is upon them. Christ plainly declared that they were liable for that blood, but he never implied that they were only being made liable for someone else’s act of bloodshed, as Weisman wrongly insists. They were liable for that blood because they and their ancestors, back to Cain, had shed that blood.

But in Luke chapter 13 where Christ said “repent or perish” He was speaking to a group of His Own followers. The context for His words in Luke chapter 13 begins in Luke chapter 12, but to understand even that we must first go back to Luke chapter 11. In Luke 11 Christ is arguing with His adversaries and we read: “47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation [or race]; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation [or race]. 52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. 53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: 54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.”

These words were very similar to what Christ had said to His adversaries at a somewhat later time, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 23. Then we see that Christ is speaking to a different group of people, to His followers and not to His adversaries, in Luke chapter 12 where we read: “1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” Immediately before that, at the very end of Luke chapter 11, we read that those opposed to Him were “Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.” From the beginning of Luke chapter 12, the context is not broken and the record of the discourse continues well into chapter 13 where we see the warning to repent and the promise of mercy, as well as the parable of the fig tree. So the warning to repent is made to an entirely different group of people than those who were being held accountable for the blood of Abel, and that other group, His disciples, were never called serpents or vipers by Christ. So Weisman created yet another lie in a long list of lies by taking words out of context which were designed for one group, and applying them to a different group.

Furthermore, Weisman lied where he said “the fig tree… represented Israel”when at no time did Christ Himself make that correlation. The fig tree of the parable in Luke chapter 13 bore no fruit, yet Israel bore much fruit, as we read in John chapter 15: “16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” So Weisman ignores the fact that there was more than one type of “tree” in Judaea, where speaking in reference to men Christ had said, in Luke chapter 6: “43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.”

In Matthew chapter 21 another parable of a fig tree is given, and it was cursed, never to bear fruit again. There it is clear that the fig tree is not Israel, but only Jerusalem, as Christ was speaking of Jerusalem, and in Matthew chapter 24, speaking of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem, He said “32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation [or race] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Therefore, in the context of those statements in Matthew chapters 21 and 24, we know that the fig tree represents Jerusalem. But so that Weisman can obfuscate the differences between the people of Christ and the enemies of Christ, he takes the words spoken to one party and claims that they apply to the other, and he takes Christ’s correlation of the fig tree to Jerusalem and he claims that it applies to all Israel. He is a liar, and the father of many lies. How is he not a devil?

Now Weisman returns his attention to Matthew chapter 23 and responsibility for the blood of Abel:

Jesus did not say these Judeans [sic] were responsible for the death of Abel, but rather they will be made responsible.

There is no example of anything in the law where an unrelated party can be made responsible for the actions of another, except in cases where the unrelated party witnessed and agreed with some sin. If Weisman had an example, he would have supplied a citation, but he did not. He is only making it up.

Continuing with Weisman:

However, He did say they, as a national, racial entity, were responsible for “the blood of Zacharias, whom you slew between the temple and the alter [sic]” (Matt. 23:35). Zacharias was stoned in the temple by the people of Judah who were Israelites (2 Chron. 24:21). Thus these people Jesus spoke to had to be their descendants. Jesus further identifies who these people are when He said to them:

Wherefore you be witnesses to yourselves, that you are the children of them which killed the prophets (Matt. 23:31).

So here, out of one side of his mouth, Weisman insists that the Israelite Judaeans, in spite of the fact that they did not descend from Cain, will be “made responsible” for the blood of Cain, even though they were not responsible, even though that is not what Christ had said. And then, out of the other side of his mouth he says that they were responsible as “as a national, racial entity” for the blood of Zacharias. He said they had to be descendants of those who killed Zacharias, but they did not have to be descendants of Cain. That is double-talk. Why would it be important for them to have been of the descendants of those who killed Zacharias, but not important to have been of the descendants of Cain? Weisman never explains, he only insists, and offers no Scripture supporting his insistence. All of his arguments are mere cunning and emotional sophistry.

It is unlikely that the Zacharias of Matthew 23:35 is the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles chapter 24, as he was “the son of Jehoiada the priest” and if we accept what certainly seems to be an interpolation in Matthew, he was not the son of Barachias. But even if that is possible, it really does not matter, however Weisman did not even mention the alternatives. Zechariah the son of Berachiah came over a hundred years later than Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.

But more significantly, however, there is another reason why Christ was not putting responsibility for the murder of the prophets upon the true people of Judah. But to understand this we must first read from 2 Chronicles chapter 24: “20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. 21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. 22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.”

It says earlier in that chapter that “2 And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest.” But after the death of Jehoiada, Joash fell to wicked influences, and for that he was punished, having been slain by his own servants. This was the reason for the warning of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada against Joash. But if the race of Joash was to be held accountable for the murder of the prophets, then Christ is condemning Himself and all of His Own relatives, as Joash is one of the kings of Israel in the line from which, in part, Christ had descended. However only Joash was basically responsible, since he was approving and accepting responsibility for the murder of Zechariah, as it is recorded that he said with his own mouth, “And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.”

But Christ is not saying that His Own race shall be held responsible for the blood of the prophets from Abel to Zacharias. Neither is Christ saying that they will only be “made responsible” for the blood of Abel, which his something that is contrary to His Own law. Once again, He is saying that the race of Cain, the descendants of Cain, are responsible, as only Cain can be responsible for the blood of Abel, and it is ultimately his descendants who caused Israel to sin. That is verified in the books of Moses and the prophets, as we have already discussed frequently here.

There is another dynamic to consider here, which is whether parents are responsible for the sins of children, and it is not so. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were never held responsible for the sins of their children. But rather, their children were granted mercy on account of the promises Yahweh had made to them, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Christ, calling the parents of these men vipers, where He called the men themselves the offspring of vipers, is holding the entire race of His adversaries accountable, but they certainly are not of the children of Israel.

Now Weisman continues with something which we have already discussed here, but will summarize once again:

It doesn’t take much Bible study to reveal that it was Israelites who killed the prophets. They were not killed by Philistines, or Canaanites, or Cainites [Kenites], but Israelites (cf. Acts 7:52). The phrase “Abel to Zacharias” was used to mean all the murderers in the Old Testament, and relates to “all the righteous blood shed on the earth.” No one can rightly say that Cain’s descendants were responsible for all of these murders. This can only be a reference to Adamic man, of which Israel is the elected seed. These words of Christ are words of judgment on Adamic-Israelites, as only Israelites could be judged under the law and covenant. No mongrel or non-Israelite could ever have this judgment upon them. The argument that Jesus was tracing these people back to Cain is a failure to see the big picture.

Charles Weisman denies the “big picture” while accusing Two-Seedline adherents of a “failure to see the big picture”, which is almost even funny, if it were not so cunning. Stephen the martyr justly puts the blame for the deaths of the prophets on the children of Israel, but the prophets themselves, as we explained in Jeremiah chapter 2 and Ezekiel chapter 16, had attributed the sins in Israel, and specifically in Jerusalem, to the fact that the Canaanites had infiltrated among the people. So the apostle Jude wrote in his short epistle: “4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” No Israelite was “of old ordained to this condemnation,” and no Israelite could have “crept in unawares”, into the congregation of God. Yet later in his epistle Jude relates these men to the “angels who left their first estate”, the Nephilim of Genesis chapter 6, who were in the earth “from of old”.

In the books of Numbers, Judges and Joshua the children of Israel were warned that if they did not kill all the Canaanites, who were originally worshippers of Baal, a fertility sex cult, that they would become thorns in their eyes and pricks in their sides. The children of Israel failed to kill them all, and the entire historical narrative of the subsequent Old Testament books relates how they did that same thing, turning their backs on Yahweh their God and following after the whims and ways of their Canaanite enemies. Yet the children of Israel were promised mercy in Christ, and Christ told those same people, descendants of Cain in His Own time, that they would be held responsible for all the blood of the righteous. So it was then, and so it is today, that the Jews, the descendants of Cain, are still responsible for all the wars and the deaths of the righteous in this world. They are also responsible for all of the idolatry, propagated through gambling casinos, Hollywood movies, the pornography industry, organized sports and other Jewish entertainment ventures, just as they created Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Baal temples of antiquity.