This is the second in a series of monthly teaching letters. If you did not get my first letter #1; 5-98, please send me $2.00 and I will send you a copy. All back issues will be $2.00 each. I will continue to use the same format that I started with. As I told you in my first teaching letter, this is a new ministry for me. I will continue to get this Teaching Letter out each month, Yahweh willing. I will also be writing booklets from time to time which I will offer you as I complete them. I have one that is almost ready but I want to do a little touchup on it before I present it. I have another one in the works for which I believe you will be excited.
At this point in time, I am getting my blood pressure surges under control, and if all goes well, I will be writing for some time to come. I am thinking of purchasing a new or good used copier as the one I presently have was not made for the long runs like I have been doing. The copier I now have is a good one but was only designed for personal and limited office use.
Now Continuing The Topic:
JUST WHO IS THIS PATRIARCH, JUDAH? (Part 2)
First of all, I would like to apologize for some typos in my first Teaching Letter. On page 8, I spelled “vail” as “vial.” Actually I was trusting the spell check on my computer on this one and goofed up. The modern spelling would be “veil” meaning something to cover the face. Actually I had it correct when I first typed it, but let the computer misguide me. The word “vail” is in the modern dictionary and means: “to lower; let sink or fall down; also a sign of respect or submission.” I really am in need of a good proofreader. I proofread my writings the best I can but don’t get all the mistakes. If you find some of my typos, please bring them to my attention, as you the reader, can serve as a proofreader for me!
On page 7 of my Teaching Letter #1, I was telling how the ten brothers, after they had sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver, divided it between them making two pieces of silver for each one. I also mentioned and asked what they might have purchased with this money. Well in further research on this I found that the money wasn’t divided evenly among the ten brothers and I also found what the brothers spent the money for. In The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, in “The Testament Of Zebulun”, chapter 1, verses 17 to 20, pages 244-5, we read this:
“17 For in his (Joseph’s) price I had no share, my children. 18 But Simeon and Gad and six other of our brethren took the price of Joseph, and bought sandals for themselves, and their wives, and their children, saying: 19 We will not eat of it, for it is the price of our brother’s blood, but we will assuredly tread it under foot, because he said that he would be king over us, and so let us see what will become of his dreams. 20 Therefore it is written in the writing of the law of Moses, that whosoever will not raise up seed to his brother, his sandal should be unloosed, and they (the dead brother’s widow) should spit in his face.”
Now that we are on the subject of the levirate law, let’s look into it further as it has everything to do with the story of Judah too! If we want to know more about the levirate law, we will have to read Deuteronomy 25:5-9, and we will do that shortly. After we read this passage in Deuteronomy, you will begin to see just how important the passage from “The Testament Of Zebulun” is to make Deuteronomy understandable. This will prove beyond all reasonable doubt that “The Testament Of Zebulun” should have been in our present Bibles today! Now Deuteronomy 25:5-9:
“5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger (strange Israelite): her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let the brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. 8 Then the elders of the city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; 9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.”
Now we can understand when we read in Ruth 4:8 which says:“Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.”
By the way, it should be mentioned that Seth raised up seed to his murdered brother, Abel. Seth’s very name means “substitute”, #8352 “in the stead of another.” It should be pointed out that Seth was a “substitute” for Abel, not Cain! Only Seth was a true blood brother to Abel, therefore a “substitute!” Only Seth could raise up seed to Abel! Here we are again, right back to “Two Seed-line!” Anyway I thought I would clear up the matter of how the twenty pieces of silver were divided between the brothers and how the money was used to buy sandals (and the symbolic meaning of the sandals). As I told you before, this is not going to be just the run-of-the-mill Teaching Letter, and you will be able to see this as we continue on.
BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU ARE READING THE SO-CALLED PSEUDEPIGRAHPA BOOKS!
The same holds true for The King James or any other version of the Bible. The only way you can get the true message is by going back to the original languages. If you are reading everything it says in the English and taking it literally , I guarantee you are not getting the true meanings. For an example of how you might get the wrong meaning from the Pseudepigrapha books let’s take a passage out of The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, “Testament Of Levi”, chapter 1, verse 14:
“And by thee (Levi) and Judah shall the Lord appear among men, saving every race of men.”
This is obviously a mistranslation of the text for we know that Yahshua came to redeem His kinsmen only. I went into this in depth in my booklet Universalism Or Racism, A Critical Review Of James Bruggeman’s History of the Doctrine of Universalism. To prove that this passage is not saying “saving every race of men”, we are going to go to the Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, page 337 under the word “race” which says:
“... com. a way, path, road; the course of the sun: Ps. xix. 5.”
“... m. a race, running: Eccles ix. 11.”
You can turn to your Strong’s Concordance and look up the word “race” and it is only found in the Bible four times: Psalm 19:5; Ecclesiastes 9:11; 1st Corinthians 9:24 and Hebrews 12:1 and it is never used in a racial sense as a race of people! Not even once! Therefore the translator(s) of The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden didn’t have a Hebrew or Greek word for “race” meaning people to translate from. I don’t have an original manuscript, so I can only guess what it should have been. This one thing I know, though, it shouldn’t have been: “saving every race of men.” (More on the word race in future lessons.) I would say that this verse should read something like this and its just an educated guess:
“And by thee (Levi) and Judah shall the Lord appear among men, saving every seed of Adam.”
The translator(s) make this same mistake several times in the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” and this should be considered when reading them! The term “race” is used once again in “The Testament of Levi”, chapter 3, verses 37-38, page 230:
“37 ... Beware of the spirit of fornication; for this shall continue and shall by thy seed pollute the holy place. 38 Take therefore to thyself (Levi) a wife without blemish or pollution, while yet thou are young, and not of the race of strange nations.”
Here the translator did a little bit better, but, again, probably shouldn’t have used the term “race.” It probably should have been translated “and not of the seed of strange nations,” I don’t know about you, but I think this last verse 37 is outstandingly good. Probably, though, Weisman, Stephen Jones, Weiland, Bruggeman and Peters would object to this, mamzer baptizers that they are! Well, you might say: What does this have to do with Judah? It has everything to do with Judah! Just hang on and in a little while we will be getting back to Judah.
MORE ABOUT THE MANDRAKES
In the last teaching letter, I got on the subject of “mandrakes.” Before we go back to the subject of Judah, let's consider another passage in "The Testament Of Issachar", chapter 1, verses 3-11, 16-19, 22-23, pages 241-2:
“3 I (Issachar) was born the fifth son to Jacob, by way of hire for the mandrakes. 4 For Reuben my brother brought in mandrakes from the field, and Rachel met him and took them. 5 And Reuben wept, and at his voice Leah my mother came forth. 6 Now these mandrakes were sweet-smelling apples which were produced in the land of Haran below the ravine of water. 7 And Rachel said: I will not give them to thee, but they shall be to me instead of children. 8 For the Lord hath despised me, and I have not borne children to Jacob. 9 Now there were two apples; and Leah said to Rachel: Let it suffice thee that thou hast taken my husband: wilt thou take these also? 10 And Rachel said to her: Thou shalt have Jacob this night for the mandrakes of thy son. 11 And Leah said to her: Jacob is mine, for I am the wife of his youth. ... 16 Nevertheless for the mandrakes I am hiring Jacob to thee for one night. 17 And Jacob knew Leah, and she conceived and bare me, and on account of the hire I was called Issachar. 18 Then appeared to Jacob an angel of the Lord, saying, Two children shall Rachel bear, inasmuch as she hath refused company with her husband, and hath chosen continency (self-restraint in sexual activity). 19 And had not Leah my mother paid the two apples for the sake of his company, she would have borne eight sons; for this reason she bare six, and Rachel bare the two: for on account of the mandrakes the Lord visited her. ... 22 Because of the mandrakes, therefore, the Lord harkened to Rachel. 23 For though she desired them, she eat them not, but offered them in the house of the Lord, presenting them to the priest of the Most High who was at that time.”
Well, this puts a lot more light on this matter of the mandrakes. I think that after all these considerations of the matter (at least it is my viewpoint) that Leah had been using the mandrakes all along. I believe further that Rachel, seeing the mandrakes being brought by Reuben to his mother Leah, envied Leah of them whereupon Rachel offered a night with Jacob to Leah for the mandrakes. I believe that Rachel pondered for some time considering the use of them, but changed her mind and gave them as an offering to Yahweh with a prayer that if He didn’t intercede for her barrenness, she simply would never have any children whereupon Yahweh opened her womb. The main point I wanted to get out of this mandrake story was the possibility that Satan may have used a narcotic drug like the mandrake to seduce Eve. Now there are some that don’t believe that a fallen angel like Satan could have the ability to have sexual intercourse. Let's read another passage in "The Testament Of Reuben" in The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, chapter 2, verses 18-19, page 223:
“18 For thus they allured the Watchers (fallen angels) who were before the flood; for as these continually beheld them, they lusted after them, and they conceived the act in their mind; for they changed themselves into the shape of men, and appeared to them when they were with their husbands. 19 And the women lusting in their minds after their forms, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven.”
No doubt, we might have some translation problems here as I would rather believe that the “Watchers” appeared to the women when they were not with their husbands. You can see from this that it would have been no problem, then, for Satan to have had changed himself into the “shape” of a man and had sexual intercourse with Eve. By the way, if you want to know more about the Watchers, read the Book of Enoch. The Book of Jude (Jude 14) speaks of Enoch as an authentic prophetic writer; therefore, Why isn’t the Book of Enoch a part of our Bible today?
There has been a lot of controversy about the Book of Enoch, whether it is authentic or not. The Book of Enoch was well known to the New Testament writers. It was well known by Jews and Christians alike during that period of time. However, from the second century A.D. on, it was rarely mentioned in Jewish sources. Then in the fourth century it fell into disfavor in the West, being stigmatized by Jerome as apocryphal. My source on this is: The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, page 104. The pagan Council of Nicaea with half pagan Constantine the Great followed later by a so-called (Saint) Jerome appropriated the Book of Enoch to the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha types of books (false or hidden) and that has been the position of the “Church” as a whole ever since. Well with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 1940’s and the early 1950’s, it put a bright new shining light on the Book of Enoch. I will now quote from the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 2, page 310 about this:
“... Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the text of I Enoch was best preserved in the Ethiopic Manuscripts, twenty-nine of which are known. Most of these contain the complete work, sometimes together with certain Biblical or Apocryphal books. Within this group of Manuscripts, two text types are distinguishable. The Ethiopic Manuscripts are late, however, the earliest belong probably to the 16th century.
“Portions of the book have also been preserved in Greek. Two Manuscripts dating from the 8th century or later were discovered in 1886-1887 in a Christian grave at Akhmim, Egypt, and preserve chapters 1-32:6 and 19:3-21:9. Syncellus (c. A.D. 800) preserves 6:1-10:14; 15:8-16:1 and 8:4-9:4 in duplicate form. The Vatican Manuscripts preserves 89:42-49 and Egyptian papyrii containing chapters 97-104 and 106-108 were published by Bonner in 1937. Some quotations from Enoch, especially from 106:1-18 are preserved in Latin.
“The Scrolls from Qumran now appear to provide the best representatives of the original text of the Book of Enoch, however. About ten fragmentary Manuscripts of the work in Aramaic were found in Cave IV. Five of these correspond roughly to Book I and Book IV of the work. It appears that these sections together with the last chapters of the book once formed a separate work. Book III, the astronomical section, is represented by four Aramaic Manuscripts which provide a more intelligible text than any others available to this time. The beginning of Book V is represented by one Manuscript. It may have circulated as a separate work as well. Support for the suggestion comes from a fragmentary Greek Manuscript found among the Chester Beatty-Michigan papyri. The fact that there are no fragments of Book II may be due to accident or it may be that this too was a separate composition not known to the Qumram community.
“It seems probable that the continued study of the evidence from Qumram will alter our estimates of the Book of Enoch somewhat.”
What an understatement this last paragraph is! With the Book of Enoch, we can understand how angel beings can change themselves into the form of men and seduce women. Now I am sure that Ted R. Weiland, Charles Weisman, Stephen E. Jones, James Bruggeman and Pete Peters has told you all about this; Right? — No they have NOT!!!!! And you may ask: What does this have to do with Judah? — It has everything to do with Judah!
While we are still on this subject of seduction, I would like to quote you one more passage from The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, Fourth Book of Maccabees, chapter 8, verses 8; 22-23, pages 196-7:
“8 And indeed it were fitting to inscribe these words over their resting-place, speaking for a memorial to future generations of our people:
“HERE LIE AN AGED PRIEST AND A WOMAN FULL OF YEARS AND HER SEVEN SONS
THROUGH THE VIOLENCE OF A TYRANT DESIRING TO DESTROY THE HEBREW NATION
THEY VINDICATED THE RIGHTS OF OUR PEOPLE
LOOKING UNTO GOD AND ENDURING THE TORMENTS EVEN UNTO DEATH”
“22 I was a pure maiden, and I strayed not from my father’s house, and I kept guard over the rib that was builded into Eve. 23 No seducer of the desert, no deceiver in the field, corrupted me; nor did the false, beguiling Serpent sully (soil, stain, tarnish, disgrace, defile) the purity of my maidenhood; I lived with my husband all the days of my youth; but when these my sons were grown up, their father died.”
It sounds here like this elderly lady of Israel understood the physical seduction of Eve! Sully meaning: to soil, stain, tarnish, disgrace and defile cannot get much more physical than that! Nonsense to theWeiland’s, Weisman’s, Stephen Jones’, Bruggeman’s and Peters’ concept of mental seduction of Eve! And, What does this have to do with Judah? It has everything to do with Judah!
In the next part of this Judah story, I am going to take from another article I wrote previously about this Judah matter. I will be cutting and pasting part of that article into this one. Some of you may have read some of this before, but it needs to be gone over again if we really want a comprehensive understanding of Judah. So you can understand what this next part is all about, I will give you a short story of how all of it got started. On October 4, 1996, I went to Louden, Tennessee at the Piney Ruritain Community Center for the Feast Of Tabernacles. There were four speakers scheduled to speak: James P. Wickstrom, Richard Hoskins, Paul Burnham, and a fellow by the name of Scott Vaught. All the speakers did quite well except this Scott Vaught who was supposed to be an expert in Paleo Hebrew. Listed third on the billing was this person by the name of Scott Vaught and this was his credentials: “Constitutional Delegate of Arkansas, student, teacher, and researcher of Paleo Hebrew, our ancestral native tongue, for over 15 years.” As I was to learn later, Scott Vaught was a fountain of misinformation of a monumental degree. As I listened in amazement, he spewed out one vial of poison after another.
SCOTT VAUGHT’S TWISTED THEOLOGY
When Scott Vaught started his presentation, I noticed that he started to talk about two different Jerusalems and two different Bethlehems. He wasn’t talking about an old Jerusalem and a new Jerusalem but two Jerusalems and two Bethlehems in Palestine. As he continued to lecture, he pointed to a map of that area which was set up and pointed out where these two Jerusalems and Bethlehems were (or at least used to be). I was later to discover he had a motive for the two sets of cities. He said that the present day Jerusalem was an old Canaanite city and was never a part of Israel or that Israel never occupied it. He further stated that there was never a person which existed as David. His main thrust was to exclude Judah from being part of Israel. He further explained that Judah’s wife, Tamar, was a Canaanite whore and therefore was in the bloodline of Yahshua (Christ). He further stated that Ruth was a Moabite and therefore that would also make Judah’s bloodline impure. His postulation was that Yahshua was of the house of Joseph, not of the house of Judah. He said that he had worn out either four or five Bibles finding out all of this and that he sat on this great “revelation” for a year before he decided to announce it to the world. He further said that David and Jonathan were homosexuals because the Scriptures said that David loved Jonathan. He indicated that all of Judah turned out bad and that they are now the Jews of today. He further indicated he could prove all of this with Paleo Hebrew. I believe the older style Paleo Hebrew is great, but I wonder where he found these old ancient manuscripts from which to read the Paleo Hebrew. I would rather believe that he is using the same old corrupted Masoretic and Septuagint texts and trying to convert them into Paleo Hebrew. If this is what he is doing, I recommend that he set on his findings a lot longer than one year; like maybe forever would be better! Well I am one half German plus Scottish and Irish and all of these came from Judah and Tamar. Scott Vaught was then therefore calling my grandmother a Canaanite whore!I couldn’t just sit idly by and let him get away with that, Could I? — and I didn’t! So I wrote an article and exposed him for what he was! What we are going to do here is take each one of these teachings of Scott Vaught one at a time and prove what he is saying is false. You say, “Why don’t you take this to Scott Vaught and tell him to his face?” I already have! The first one that we are going to work on is proving that Tamar Was Not A Canaanite! Before we do this we really should read the entire 38th chapter of Genesis. We did this in the Teaching Letter #1; 5-98. If you don’t have a copy of Teaching Letter #1, review Genesis chapter 38 now and then return back to this point.
TAMAR WAS NOT A CANAANITE!
At this time we are going to quote from chapter 1 of a book entitled “All Of The Women Of The Bible” by Edith Deen published by Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, Copyright, 1955. We will be quoting pages 41 to and including 44. This will also be a critical review of this section of chapter 1 entitled, “Tamar”— “She Hath Been More Righteous Than I.” This will also serve to get us acquainted with the story of Tamar. Scott Vaught’s accusation was that Tamar was a Canaanite whore. With the help of this article from this book we can get started on that charge of offense:
“TAMAR, SHE HATH BEEN MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN I”
“Though events centering around Tamar’s life are quite confused and intolerable, according to today’s moral standards, her actions were consistent with the standards of morality prevailing in the primitive era in which she lived.
“The Genesis account of Tamar serves a dual purpose. First, it is one of the Bible’s best examples of the levirate marriage law. This was the ancient custom of marriage between a man and the widow of his brother required by the Mosaic law when there was no male issue and when the two brothers had been residing on the same family property. The law, of course, takes its name from the noun levir, meaning a husbands brother. Second, this Genesis account of Tamar gives us the Bible’s most graphic picture of how a quick-witted widow of early Israel protected herself and her family rights.
“Tamar, not a wicked woman at all, plays a meaningful role in Old Testament history as the mother of Pharez, ancestor of King David. When she had lost two husbands, both of whom were brothers, and was refused the remaining young brother, she still had the courage to demand her rights to motherhood by law. What did she do? After her mother-in-law’s death, she turned to the father of her husband. The legitimacy and courage of her action are implied in every move she makes.
“Scripture does not mention Tamar’s parentage or place of birth but proceeds to introduce her by saying that her first husband Er ‘was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him’ (Gen.. 38:7). Next she became the wife of his brother Onan, who ‘displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also’ (Gen. 38:10).
“This union of Tamar with Onan shows the perfect working of the levirate law, devised to retain the ownership of property within the family as well as to prevent the extinction of the family line. After her second husband’s death, Judah advised his daughter-in-law Tamar to remain a widow at her father’s house until his third son Shelah came of age. But fearing that Tamar possessed a sinister power, and that Shelah might die too, Judah delayed this third son’s marriage with Tamar.
“A considerable time elapsed and then Judah’s wife died. The love of offspring, still deep in the heart of Tamar, caused her to plan how she might seek her rights in motherhood from her father-in-law Judah. Since he had denied her his third son, Shelah, she sought a way to force him to accept his responsibility as guaranteed to her by the levirate law.
“When Tamar heard that Judah was soon to be in the hills of Timnath with his friend Hirah, the Adullamite, at great personal risk she set upon a plan of her own. It was sheep-shearing season, and many guests would come from the surrounding country. Tamar planned to be there, too, but under a disguise, so that Judah would not recognize her as the widow of his sons.
“She removed her garments of widowhood, put on a veil to hide her face, and ‘wrapped herself,’ probably in a colorful and becoming festival robe.
“Since Tamar’s name was the same as that of the stately tropical tree of Bible lands, we can assume that she was a tall, sturdy woman with a graceful carriage, one who would command attention wherever she went. This time she chose to stand by the side of the road where Judah would pass by.
“Not recognizing this woman with the veil-covered face as the widow of his two sons and thinking she was a harlot, Judah made advances to her and said, ‘Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee’ (Gen.. 38:16).
“Clever woman that she was, she said, ‘What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?” (Gen.. 38:16).
“And he said, ‘I will send thee a kid from the flock.’ And she said, ‘Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?’ And he said, ‘What pledge shall I give thee?’ And she said, ‘thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand.’ And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him (Gen.. 38:17-18).
“The unscrupulous actions of Judah, with whom Tamar was here involved, and the noble actions of Joseph, whom Potiphar’s wife tried to involve, present a striking contrast. Some commentators conjecture that is why the story of Potiphar’s wife immediately follows that of Tamar.
“Tamar now turned homeward, carrying with her the signet, bracelet, and staff that had belonged to Judah. Then she removed her veil and put on again the garment of widowhood. A short time afterward Judah sent the kid by his friend Hirah, who had been with him at Timnath for the sheep-shearing. And Judah requested that his more personal possessions be returned when the kid was delivered.
“When Hirah entered the town where Tamar lived, carrying with him the kid, he asked for the harlot who had been by the side of the road, but the men told him there was no harlot in the place. This is the best evidence we have that Tamar was not a prostitute but a self-respecting woman, determined to outwit a man and demand her right to children, according to the laws of the time.
“About three months later (Gen.. 38:24), Judah received word that his daughter-in-law was ‘with child by whoredom.’ This phrase suggest the malicious gossiper who had carried tales to Judah. Angered at this report, he ordered that his daughter-in-law be brought forth and burned, for that would have been the penalty if the report were true (Lev. 20:14). But when Tamar came before Judah, holding his signet, bracelets, and staff, she asked, ‘Discern, I pray thee, whose are these?’ (Gen. 38:25).
“Judah could not deny their ownership and admitted, ‘She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more’ (Gen.. 38:26). The last phrase is evidence enough that Tamar was not a promiscuous woman. She had merely acted according to the laws and rather heroically at that; and we can be confident she had exonerated herself, and that Judah had absolved her of all guilt.
“Trice denied a child by a rightful husband, Tamar now gave birth to twins by Judah. Like the twins of Rebekah, there is a detailed account of the appearance of the elder Pharez, who became inheritor of the family birthright. Afterward his brother Zarah was born with the ‘scarlet thread upon his hand’ that the midwife had tied there. The story of the birth of Tamar’s sons depicts clearly a woman in travail and the birth of twins.
“In the story of Ruth, another widow who also came to motherhood through the levirate law, we find worthy mention made of Tamar, who bore a child to Judah. Other Tamars follow her, one the ‘fair sister’ (II Sam. 13:1) of Absalom and the other the woman of ‘fair countenance’ (II Sam. 14:27) who was the daughter of Absalom. Could it be that they were namesakes of their courageous ancestress, who would not be deprived of her rights of motherhood?” (Underlining emphasis mine in the paragraphs above.)
While the above quotations from the book, All Of The Women Of The Bible, are good, I believe that they can be improved upon. I will be doing this in the next lesson. This is not the end of this story of Judah by far — we will be spending quite some time on it. I promise you, we are not going to complete this story of Judah in just a few lessons as it is a long and complicated story.
Again I would like to say to you: If you want to receive these Teaching Letters on a regular basis, please send me your name and address along with some of your friends. And, too, a little support on your part would go a long way to help. Some of the 32 cent postal stamps on this present mailing to you were donated by some of our incarcerated political prisoners who know their Identity as Israel and understand the importance of the “Two Seed-line” message.