Assassination of Abel:
The Site Configuration & jesus’ Conviction
The murder of Abel by hand of jesus, rebellious alter ego of Lucifer,  and the foisting of the crime upon Cain, is the point of deployment of the sin gene that originated from the self-same being. After wishfully transplanting the deed onto man, and engineering continuedly on the “banished” Cain gene, he smugly closes the section. But before, he makes two verses (genesis 4:25,26 ) in which he retrieves Adam, who had been irretrievably banished from his presence,  to produce Seth and from Seth, Enos. The most important fourth chapter of his book closes here, but after the murder of Abel is re-affixed by him once again on man, this time through words inscribed as coming from Eve.
(Ultra-clients of the bible book nevertheless state that its chapter divisions are insignificant. At the same time, they would also contradict the statement, when they cast about, all through these 2000 years and even beyond, looking for the slayer of J Lucifer among historical personages who nearly identified him, or positively will. They also dutifully call each one the anti-christ  and wait impatiently to see “the future misery of the [anti-Lucifer] wicked.” 
Why does he compulsively retrieve Adam if even by contradicting himself? He is not even aware of this, as he exactly repeats the same contradiction when he begins ch. 5 after pausing. Therefore, it has issued from a genetic drive, a dominant.  The motivations of the drive can be seen from its consequences, Enos being a variant of Enoch, who as donor  and carrier of the sin gene, takes christianity -wishfully, though-to all of mankind.  Secondly, from the resuscitated Adam is derived Seth, and immediately from Seth, Cainan, variant of Cain, and finally his own alter ego, incubated by Mary and named jesus by Joseph on orders of Gabriel,  obviously a pupil of Lucifer in the craft of procurance for fornication.
So now we have the guilt/sin imposed on man by display of the body of Abel after he had been murdered by the so-called jehovah, we have it now calculatedly osmosed into the whole race by genetically engineering upon the gene of admission procured from man in Cain and later on from woman in Eve through proclamation contrived from her while giving birth to Seth. (Incidentally, this also shows the christian god far from almighty, and a slave of the gene besides. On the other hand, Sivan transcends the gene, by simultaneous destruction and regeneration. 
After having thus self-assuredly implanted his essential sin gene in the race, the christian god, alias Lucifer, alias jesus, proceeds swashbucklingly now to destroy it.  However, again he turns to repetition, this time in regard to the progeny of Noe, viz., Shem, Ham and Japheth, expressly stipulating that all four bring their wives too, although Noe was still himself productive.  It is from Shem and his progeny thus realised for sure in the mind of Lucifer and consequently in his book, and from the christian races scripturally derived from that same gene stock,  that the sin gene exclusive to Lucifer is racially implanted and materially and historically diffused.
Rebel that he is, but at this point not yet a cyclical rebel, three times in ch. 6 he does lucidly transpose his own iniquity on man  -and historical christianity dutifully took over the identical task from him from Day One.  Driven now to outright blindness by virulent animosity against man innate in him and alone in him,  he unwittingly discards for a moment even the ego of the godship that he had irretrievably lost and then impossibly self-assumed, rebelliously, (Just that sort of self-replicating  spasmic reflex uniformly constitutes the DNA fingerprint of both “father” and “son,”  proving them one and the same being,  and Mary the mate-mother of a single male in consequence.)
Let us go back to the central question of the first murder and the identity of the being responsible, examining it this time mainly from the notion of corpus delicti.  does not prove that he murdered his brother. Why, Adam, Eve, or god himself may have been the offender.” See also ibid., December 20, 1988, featuring report of mock trial held in Venice, December 18, 1988, by biblical scholars, historians, magistrates, and criminologists, which exonerated Cain of Abel’s murder.) Since the killer transformed himself after the deed into a different and antipodal personality under an assumed name-to which was later added the word christ  -the person itself remaining intact by reason of indivisibility, the corpus delicti will be dissipated to the two levels, the corpus itself remaining at the primary level and the configuration of the assassination site at the second and final level.
Let us say once again that the bible book embodies the self-expression of Lucifer. Secondly, the book incorporates all of him; nothing of him is omitted. Consequently, nothing directly pertaining to Lucifer is perceivable in other scriptural works. On the other hand, the phenomenon of his rebellion has endured in man’s collective memory, concretely in the case of the scripturally semitic races and conceptually in the Hindu races. John Trapp for example correctly spelled out from this memory when he wrote: “Some say [the sin of Lucifer] was pride in affecting divinity.” The Vedic rishis  rather sense Lucifer conceptually, encirclingly and negatively.  They instinctively recoil from such a spectacle of primordial evil that nevertheless affects to be underived goodness. Incidentally, it is the same phenomenon of positive evil that is articulated in the pages of his bible book as incarnate godship by affectation.
Since Lucifer is a rebel, his exclusive self-expressive work too will obligatorily spew the rebellion at pivotal moments. The rebellion is endogenous by the very nature, being a rebellion against the reality of his fall. Lucifer, alias jesus, is aware of this reality as the inseparable and centrifugal catalyst of the rebellion. As the sole carrier of the rebellion, the bible book therefore partakes too of this awareness.
The assassination of Abel by hand of Lucifer, alias the christian god, and the transposition of the deed onto man are the pivot of the entire schema of execution of Lucifer’s rebellion in the mode of a scripture proffered before man.
By definition admitted by christianity, Lucifer is specifically distinguished from his peers in the fall by the one characteristic of superabundant affliction of those who serve him exceptionally. This triggers the tooltip
(A third characteristic distinctive to Lucifer is his murderous animus against Sivan, instead of loyalty towards that being animating the other fallen angels. The positive affectation of divinity in Lucifer, alias jesus, outflows, basically, from his rebellion against the memory of its loss.)
It is also admitted bilaterally that of the brothers Cain and Abel, it was the latter who preferentially served him by a relished bloody rite; consequentially but unwittingly he courted too the advertised exceptional affliction, paying with his life in the process.
The transaction involving Abel is unmistakable for the disposition characteristic of Lucifer towards those who are persuaded to remarkably serve him, and towards those as well who persuade themselves to so serve him in anticipation of reward. Abel belongs to the first category since he is a pre-christian archetype of the follower of the historical Lucifer, viz., jesus. He is thus persuaded to follow with a second sacrifice when Lucifer tarries with the first sacrifice, given by Cain. Abel makes a blood sacrifice, inevitably alternating to the particular mode after Cain’s rebuffed sacrifice of corps from the land. Mechanically then Lucifer is pleased with the bloody rite of Abel’s, so much indeed as for him to verbally pontificate over the sensation even in the direction of Cain,  who connotes man-specie in Lucifer’s consciousness.
The very next movement in his consciousness takes the direction of assassinating Abel for the service rendered, exactly as in the fashion of the classical Lucifer,  and quite unlike that of Beelzebub, who serves back those who serve him. 
The christian old testament of the bible book, particularly its most typological part named as genesis, is the transcribed embodiment of the consciousness of the classical Lucifer. It is in this sense that we call it the exclusive medium of the self-expression of Lucifer. The soliloquies, characters, and incidents featuring in it are emanations of this consciousness- the first at its indivisible primary level, the next at the fundamental operational level, and the third at the secondary operational level. It is at this third level that the consciousness of the devil supreme infiltrates generally into that of a particular community of people accomplishedly centered around Moses.
The fourth and final stage of the bible book named as new testament embodies the historical delineation of the same consciousness, now extrinsically transformed by paisacha vivaham (fornication by the Devil) with the female Mary of the same community.
Both catholic and protestant codices of the bible book are agreed that the words ascribed to Cain at genesis 4:8 in the christian version of the old testament (“Let us go out in the fields”) are wanting in the Hebrew text,  which constitutes its indivisible original. Since the fields mentioned constitute the site of the conventional assassination of Abel, they are indivisibly linked to that act. The dissolution of this indivisibility for want of scriptural support on the one hand dismantles the structured comprehensiveness in Cain’s action, as alleged in the christian scriptures,  and on the other disentangles him from the act of beckoning Abel to the site of the crime, and thus of the crime itself, to which the act of beckoning is indivisibly linked.
The surviving part of Cain’s action is the act that the christian scriptures describe variously, and insecurely, as “rising up,” “turning on,”  and “proceeding to assault.” The christian insecurity in these texts exudes unmistakably too in the expression assault; in fact, however, the expression exonerates Cain also at the level of intention,  in contrast with the proclaimed homicidal intentions of the jehovah (see below). As for the alternate definition of “assault,” the same fails to apply, by reason of the established dissolution of indivisibility.
Now for the corpus of the victim. We find the corpus of Abel in the form of his lifeblood held by jehovah (see last chapter, q.v.), and this agrees too with the onstage emplacement, Cain having been exonerated of having even grazed Abel, and there remaining consequently only a single surviving agent, viz., the christian god. “Listen,” exclaims he to Cain after having strangulated Abel. The expression is Sanskrit at its etymosian origin (from srosati). Since it means in the context “to be alert to catch an expected sound,” for example, the sound of a step, thereby the christian god is approaching Cain immediately after having strangled Abel and with the sound of the dripping blood still ringing relishedly in his ears. By sharply and suddenly uttering “Listen!” he is trying to have the same deathly sound ring in Cain’s (man’s) ears, thereby to secure an admission from him of the deed of assassination that he (the christian god) had himself perpetrated, firstly under impulsion of his inherent proclivity against those who serve him, and secondly, but equally, for discharging an irredeemable guilt into man’s consciousness.
And yet he cannot get the guilt realised for sure except through environment. So he promptly revamps the blood of Abel that he had forced out to the ground by strangulation, relates it sensationally before Cain now with the same ground (“the earth has opened its mouth”), and effectively intimidates him finally by a spectacular projection of phenomenal poverty (“When you cultivate the ground, it will not give you back its power”). It is at this point that Cain is sufficiently overpowered to admit himself to the guilt for the homicide of Abel by the christian god.
The distinctive configuration of the site of the assassination of Abel is known to jesus.
Also for this reason, the statement of Cain disclaiming information about Abel’s whereabouts when dissemblingly questioned by the true assassin, is realistic. The text of the interrogation (what is this thou hast done?–genesis 4:10) bespeaks the interrogator’s self-consciousness of his own deed of assassination. And before, this very questioner had urged the same Cain to perform the identical deed: “Meanwhile, he-Abel-is at thy mercy and thou canst have thy way with him”-ibid., 7, Knox bible. Since this decisive text is suppressed in all version save this one and supplanted with a seemingly alluresome countertext (“If you do not turn to doing good,” etc., etc.), and since in both instances the texts are incontrovertible by autonomous declaration of the inviolability of the book both wholly and fragmentarily, the unique text signalises the antecedent homicidal consciousness of the being who subsequently confronts Cain as indicter.
The configuration is divulged alone by jesus. Contextually, this exclusive knowledge he (jesus) holds of the characteristic “signature” of a murder committed in underived secrecy by the being he now calls his father constitutes them one and the same being. As for the fatherhood, such an invocation is warranted from the pseudo-sonhood the same being obtained in the meantime from the female Mary.
The gleesome advertisement of the configuration of the site under external pressure of identification, however comprehensively sensed at that moment by his maternal countrymen, and the sinistrally  rebellious mode of distribution of its text in a single version together with a rebellious suppression and supplantation of the same evidence in all other texts of the same talk (see below) once again mark jesus out-this time from destruction of evidence-as the perpetrator of the crime and thus, all over again, as the same being who interacts with Cain in the so-called genesis.
We find an intricate and devious design dating to centuries in the past but well subsequent to Moses to institute a deflective cover over the evidence constituting him the assassin of Abel. Some of the components detected are so far ulterior in nature as to proclaim even independently of the identity the direct operation of a diabolical mind all through these books styled as old and new testament and even further on in the history accounted to them.
To anticipate for example, the books describing the paternity of Zacharias, son of Joiada, go by the name paralipomenon, word etymologically related to preemption. However, the same books are titled differently as chronicles in the other stream. Again the paternity is sought to be muffled in both catholic and protestant streams by representation of Zacharias at Ezra 5:1 as son of Iddo/Addo and also simultaneously as grandson of Iddo. It is further obfuscated in both streams in text that is again misleadingly captioned, the catholic 2 Esdras and the protestant solitary Nehemiah. Here the name “Joiada” is given in parenthesis immediately after “Joiarib.” However, “Joiada” figures as “Idaia” in the Latin original, and this is termed a “seeming copyist’s mistake.”  Finally, each one of these entries, title and all, is shielded by generic certification as the minutely impervious script of a god!
Rebel that he is and gleesome by swa-bhavam, as the Vedic texts do tell us in their apprehension of the anatomy of asuras, he does bare this cover himself firstly by this reason of innate nature, secondly by reflexive angst excited by his falling under identification by the Jews as Beelzebub, 
Although merely encircling, the identification is realistic as far as he is concerned, since it corresponds with his speciational rating as a fallen ex-god, or fallen angel, or fallen archangel. He shares this epidemic misattribute of being fallen commonly with Beelzebub and with all the rest in the class of beings that the christian lore identifies generally as fallen angles or again as “chief devils.”  At the same time, he is marked from these others by rebellion, which remains frozen uniquely in him. While rebellion is his distinctive mark, it is also for this same reason the element-cohesive of his id that concomitantly keeps the same id from disintegrating. In this case he would fall back into pre-rebellion, post-fall, original state, a prospect and process that he resists autonomously,  but also consciously too after embodiment from Mary.
We have seen that Hebrew books disentangle Cain from the assassination of Abel. The historical jehovah is now confronted by the same Hebrews who squarely interrogate him regarding the nuts and bolts of his paradise. (Matthew, ch.22)
The interrogation is meaningful for its aftermath in the subject. We have seen how the reflexive angst surges dominantly and monopolistically in him as well as in his father under such encompassingly identifying external charges and how in the latter case it affords a connective to perceive father and son to be one and the same being.  Whereas in the father it materialises as a single surge, but a typical surge of consciousness for all that, in the son the same impulse in the face of identification surges classically in waves upon waves  that inexorably culminate in an objectively self-defeating, and self-revelatory, defiance. On the one hand, it is self-defeatist, but on the other, the same defiance is sought at the same time to be covered by rebellion, in this case even against his own text. (see below)
The House of Abel:
The christian scriptures in its parental Greek text, as distinct from the ancestral Hebrew text, dislocate the site of the murder of Abel by removal to the fields where Cain, as alleged, drew him out. Since the ongoing christian scriptures, the so-called new testament, boldly and gleesomely announce the true site, new and different from the site parentally announced, and since this new announcement is expressly accredited to the source-being of historical christianity, scriptural christianity in its entirety is shown to be man’s enemy, firstly by devising the maiden scriptural murder, committed by the same source-being, then by transposing it in its Greek texts onto man, and finally by challengingly mocking him with clues for identifying the true assassin when such identification, so he thinks, would no longer make any difference by reason of the scriptural acceptance of guilt by Cain.  He can well afford to do this now as he also makes the duration of the world coterminous with that of his scripture.
Let us now consider about the actual site of murder of Abel as it is finally and virginally announced by its perpetrator in the ongoing segment of the christian scriptures.
“Between the altar and the house,” announces jesus knowingly at Luke 11:51. But he also criminally interposes another victim from a different murder-equally, but not uniformly, in all text of the announcement. Since this other murder is historical, distinguished from scriptural, and recognised in the land from notice in the Hebrew scriptures, jesus in interposing it here is classically rebelling against the compulsive advertisement of the clue to Abel’s assassination. He can also afford the advertisement at this point because of the cloak of redeemership from guilt that he has acquired in the meantime from the female Mary.
The second victim, in addition to Abel, is one Zacharias, son of Joiada, this latter having been in his time a priest in the Jerusalem temple. The son was killed within the temple courtyard for a good reason by the people who stoned him on orders of the king. Zacharias had enraged them both when he tried to subvert them by his preaching, himself under possession by jehovah.
The objective feature distinguishing the assassination of Abel from that of Zacharias, son of Joiada, consists of the disparate physical configuration of the site of the deed in the two cases. This remains so even if we were to take the parental christian scripture momentarily at its word as proffered since the assassination of Abel is specifically placed by it upon the fields where allegedly Cain beckoned him (“And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him.”-genesis 4:8).
Jesus is first of all concerned with a summary removal of this distinction, because only in that way can he “homogenize” the two histories. By thus clubbing them together-“from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah, who was slain between the altar and house,” Luke 11:51-he seeks to turn them into a single lump, so that the element of historical responsibility in the second murder, which man anywhere would own at all times under perception of the true identity of the being, viz., Lucifer, that Zacharias was trying to impose, is transferred to the primordial murder, that of Abel, for which he (jesus) and alone he is accountable by sole responsibility.
But it is a distinction that is impossible to remove, on account of objective existence as a reality unchangeable (nischalathathwam). Therefore, jesus, alias Lucifer, aware of this verity all the way from his pre-fall history and now moreover from the extrinsic consciousness acquired from Mary, brings a second Zacharias, also historical. This man is sufficiently documented in the Hebrew scriptures as author of one of its books and further as grandson of Addo and son of Barachias. BUT HE DID NOT PERISH FROM BEING KILLED.
But fraudulently and criminally, jesus conflates the two Zachariases, picking the fatherhood of the second Zacharias, son of Barachias, and falsely affixing it upon the homicidal death of the first Zacharias, son of Joiada. The distinctive configuration of the violent death of the first Zacharias, son of Joiada, would still remain the question, since it occurred in the courtyard of the temple and not in the fields, like Abel’s assassination. (“On the king’s orders the people stoned Zechariah in the temple courtyard. The king forgot about the loyal service Zechariah’s father Jehoiada had given him, and he had Zechariah killed.”-2 chronicles 24:21,22.) So he has the same words of his at Luke 11:51, sinistrally repeated at Matthew 23:35, where he utters them incongruously with those in Luke: “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachias, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”
Since he expressly applauds Abel as righteous, it is the same being here, by indivisibility of consciousness, as the being that identically favoured Abel at genesis 4:4 by reason of the bloody rite he inducingly offered, and each of the two beings the same, whether jointly or severally, as the being in the manifesto laid to Mary of Agreda, who therein announces the principled assassination of Abel for service rendered all too uniquely.
Considerations of sinistralism apart, the clinching text as far as jesus’ culpability is concerned, is Luke 11:51. Unlike Matthew 23:35, the paternity of Zacharias is altogether unrecited in Luke. In Matthew, the paternity is specified as Barachias. But Zacharias born of him did not die from violence, as dishonestly affirmed there by jesus.
The omission of Zacharias’ paternity in Luke and its inclusion in Matthew together with the other data in it that is factually dishonest when applied to the one or the other Zacharias, as sought by jesus in his criminality, and the quick breakdown of the whole patter (“the jargon of criminals” –Webster’s, p.834) when applied as the camouflaged clue to detection of Abel’s true assassinator, and only when so applied, are the factors in jesus’ conviction.
However differingly objectified, again both texts mutually coalesce firstly by the common scriptural constituent of Abel and secondly by a colonnade of imprecations, seven of them in Matthew and five of the same seven in Luke, but all uniformly worded in its imprecatory part and all directed in both cases against his comprehensive identifiers whom jesus grandiosely projects-by reason of beinghood as cyclical rebel also now from the extrinsic terrestrial consciousness-as his detractors!
The seven anaphoras have the culminative effect of reverting him wholesale to the parental consciousness in the “garden,” and inevitably thereupon to Sivan. Thus they are followed immediately with an eight paragraph of vituperation against man as “serpents and offspring of vipers.” For the same reason of indiscriminate reversion of consciousness, the clue to the assassination of Abel by his hand drops out in his eighth paragraph in Matthew, irrepressibly, but still speciously, after the vituperation, and the same further ejects definitively in Luke, like “frog from the mouth,”  at the end of the fifth anaphora of imprecation therein.
To say it again, the consciousness pitches back from the “garden” upon the terrene by reason of the extrinsic factor acquired from the terrestrial female. But this factor is merely expedient and does not affect, much less modify, the malignancy running from the ancestor and the parent in an uninterrupted line. Whereas in the parent a new operational mode can be identified,  newly from the ancestor but activated and administered by the same rule of pretext laid in the manifesto, likewise in the progeny too a new operational mode is perceptible, but in this case nonchalantly acquired from the female,  under necessity of the ancestral pretext. It is thus that the consciousness while reverting to the “garden,” criminally moves also to Abel and his house in a different book, viz., Luke, and simultaneously to the terrene in form of the intended Zacharias, as distinct from his namesake.
Both “Zacharias” and “Zacharias, son of Barachias” having been perceived to be criminal subterfuges, the former by the site given, which only applies to Abel, and the latter by the paternity given, which does not apply to the former, so admitted autonomously even by christianity, Luke 11:51 nucleates into the site of the assassination of Abel since the true configuration known and flaunted alone by jesus and alone in that text of the non-catholic stream-New World Translation, to repeat, witnessing genuinely to jehovah-exactly answers to each of the specifications and to all of them, Abel being a householder, he having made a sacrifice on lord’s table, and Lucifer, alias jesus, by definition having to strangle him before he reaches his house and after he had pleased him with the rite in blood characteristically relished by him-areally, in between the altar and the house.
The other red herrings encountered, like the suppression of this critical text in the catholic stream as also almost totally in the non-catholic stream, the titular subterfuge in both streams by which paternity of Zacharias, son of Joiada, is sought to be obfuscated by placing mutually differing twin titles upon the concerned pairs of textually identical books-to repeat, 1 & 2 paralipomenon in the catholic stream and 1 & 2 chronicles in the protestant stream-the planting of an extra imprecation in the catholic Matthew 23 to institute a false lead in respect of the prescriptive amount of seven, together with its punctilious suppression by erasure in the protestant version,  the same wary preoccupation with the crime as before that runs on in Paul, Jude,  and John,  together with a new, sly, triumphalism even in regard to Abel the favourite (“jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s blood,”  Hebrews 12:24, New WorldTranslation),the vituperation of Cain that endures to the very last breath-all massively signpost by sheer insidiousness and overtness in every case the culpability of the christian god, and alone of him, in the death of Abel by homicide.
Apart from the passages that we have noticed for their common vulnerability (pp. 92-93), there is no evidence forthcoming from the text of the bible itself that would implicate Cain in the murder of Abel. On the contrary, the observed text smartly immunises Cain, and at the same time goes on to indicate, even if furtively, the identity of a real, and different, culprit. Such a mode, involving the compulsive ejection of the reality along with a rebellion against the ejectionary text, which amounts to a rebellion even against the act of ejection, is endemic in Lucifer by reason of his swa-bhavam as rebel against reality, specifically the reality of his fall.
The observed text,genesis 4:8, reads as follows: “When they were in the fields, Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”-Dublin bible, p.7; King James version: Gideons, p.4
The comma interposed after brother in the above is meaningful for two reasons. Firstly, the particular rebellion against it found in other versions that have uniformly suppressed it. When so suppressed, and only then, Cain becomes the common subject of both clauses in the text. However, the comma is an independent entity, from positive existence in scripture. Its nonpresence in the other texts is a relative factor, subsisting only by negation of this entity. Therefore, the first text merits independent consideration.
By authoritative definition and illustration,  exactly this kind of comma followed by a conjunction would separate the two clauses and introduce a different subject for the second clause. Therefore, Cain is not the subject of the clause relating the assassination of Abel. Since by reason of indivisibility no distinction can be drawn between the words of scripture and the things they signify, the release of Cain from the clause automatically releases him also from the act signified, viz., assassination of Abel.
We have seen that the enticing words “Let us go out together” are altogether lacking in the Hebrew original. New World Translation, however, puts the same words in brackets to intimate, as the compiler says, that they have been “inserted to complete the sense in the English text.” But even then the words are featured within quotation marks, the same as they are in Good News bible, etc., which however do not similarly enclose them in brackets. Since firstly the text and quotation marks occur identically in both books, since secondly the sentence immediately following in New World Translation is indivisibly connected to the parenthesised words with the word “So,”  and since thirdly the principles of scriptural exegesis propounded long before christian exegesis by Badarayanan and followed by Sankaracharya similarly construe the expression “then” (adha in Sanskrit) occurring as the first word of Vedanta-Sutras, This triggers the tooltip the exclusion of parenthesis on the part of Good News bible would nullify their admitted interpolation in New World Translation, and thus would make the parenthesised words redundant, equally as in Good News bible considered in the light of the footnote. 
Jesus is the Murderer of Abel
- Zacharias, son of Johiada, died of murder. But jesus says Zacharias, son of Barachias, died from murder. However, Zacharias, son of Barachias, was not murdered. He died a natural death.
- Therefore, jesus lied.
- The motive for the lie is found in its circumstance.
- In the first part of his statement jesus refers to the assassination of Abel. The site of assassination, “between the altar and the house,” is accurately known to him. This is in Luke. The site is known to him alone. In Matthew he omits the site of Abel’s assassination, but mentions the actual site of the murder of Johiada’s son Zacharias while referring to Barachias’ son Zacharias who however had a natural death.
- jesus’ conduct involves destruction and distortion of evidence. It also involves the rebellious proclamation of the evidence constituting him the assassin of Abel.
- In short, it corresponds with what one would expect from a murderer of Abel who is also a rebel against himself.
- Therefore, jesus is the murderer of Abel.