Eagle

Larry, Point taken. Thanks. Guys, I think when he meant Raf should publish his stuff, he was speaking about his biblical views and work and not news. I think. Eagle

Arrested for speaking out about scriptural matters offending the state? If I were in that country, I'd be serving life or would have been executed. But I can't claim that alone. All of GreaseSpot would at one time or another be arrested or flogged in one country or another.

Raf, Has your fiancee begun to pick out baby names yet? Mine did before we were married, anticipating pregnancy on our honeymoon I guess. Unfortunately, we were not able to have any. Here's hoping God blesses you with the best marriage and family under Heaven... Eagle

Y: You're right. It IS tough going to church. The only way out...is to begin your own. At least you would have control over the things you believe and hopefully find those like-minded.

No problem stating opinion...even when one believes that VPW or whoever is the man of God. Should be NO problem then in a free forum if someone challenges the opinion, is there? Mine is challenged all the time.

Mike: THE man of God?

This topic just had to come up. It is not necessarily about TWI so it is in the open forum. It has been my experience that most Christian churches and ministries have at least one or more pretty heavy disagreements among them based on doctrine. I have found that you may find a "scholar" or a Ph.D. or a lay person, or ordained minister disagree with what you believe but in different ways. Or they may agree with what your conclusion is but disagree a hundred ways on how you got there. What is worse, if you are a pastor working for a denominational church, you have to tow the line on their doctrine even if you relaize some of it is incorrect and the church leaders will not listen or debate key topics of discussion. I think I found out why so many independent churches spring up. TWI wasn't the only organization bullying people around, though they did do that more than most I knew. Any comments on how you are treated in your church? I am sure we have both positive and negative experiences out there.

Someone once asked Woody Allen how he intended to achieve immortality. He said, "I intend to achieve immortality by not dying."

Now back to the point of this post, not necessarily John's website having an anti-Way section, but if having a website at all against TWI gets old after a while. I have to say that as long as TWI continues to operate in the fashion it does, the websites will remain standing.

Judas Priest? Ha! I once began calling him "Doctor." Then I freaked out. Yes, he is a legitimate one, but the habit came forth like a flashback and hit him on it by mistake. Could be the reason he stopped emailing! I remembered to just call him "Dr. Juedes" instead of "Doctor". It probably creeped him out. My apologies, John. Eagle

Dr. Juedes had helped me along the way during my years when I found myself in opposition to TWI doctrine. I ended up buying all of his materials, which he sent promptly. I was wondering about his higher education credentials until he just revealed them in his post. It was wonderful to see that. He knows quite a bit on the off-shoots as well. When I had my webpage and debated the Fall of Man against TWI doctrine, I was challenged by an off-shoot still following Wierwille and was told "to use the Word of God." I remembered chapter and verse, and used hundreds of them in the article I wrote, so I was confused about that. I wrote Dr. Juedes and told him if there was "something" psychologically off" about that response. He humorously wrote back and said that when Wierwille followers say "to use the Word of God", it meant to them "as Wierwille would have done it." I wasn't bothered too much on those comments anymore. For the most part, Dr. Juedes has agreed with the contents of my own book, but I believe he definitely disagrees with some chapters, for whatever theological or philosophical reason. My book is anti-TWI on doctrine, which does go to show that even if you oppose TWI, he may or may not agree with how you did it. One day, he did stop answering my emails. I was pretty sad about it. He has done a terrific job and is a very good Christian minister and pastor. Eagle

I think REPEATED EXCESSIVE SPEEDING and RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT as well as REPEATED DUIs constitute a move to finally pry the vehicle from the purp's hands. A one time deal is excessive. A guy who just won't learn his lesson is excessive. I once tested my own car in the 1970s on the Massachusetts Turnpike. I looked to see no one in sight and was surrounded by farmland. I floored it to see how fast I could go. My speedometer only went to 100, and I hit that. After a few minutes at 100 miles an hour or more, I slowed down to the legal 60 (at that time). Ten years older and ten years wiser I thought about it. How stupid that really was. There was one person there around to get hurt or killed. Me. But it was only once. Taking my car would have crippled me then. Suspending my license would have been understood. Taking my car would have been cruel. But if I continued at 100 miles an hour being cited over and over, then taking my car would have been the only thing to stop the behavior. I'm glad I was not caught. I'm glad I was not killed.

This seems like terrible news.

Thank you, White Dove. I hadn't known that Chris Geer did a few of his own. I'll refrain from saying what I said in the future. I was too used to seeing the "posthumously V.P. Wierwille" stuff when I was with TWI post POP. John Juedes does have some issues I debate as well. I don't know his college background, either. I just assume he got his doctorate from a major theological seminary, or at least I suppose. And in fairness, he doesn't agree with everything I believe, either.

This is far more into current events than in political debate. It deals with criminal and civil behavior by a prosecutor. The man was soooo...guilty, obstructing justice, withholding crucial evidence, etc. Being disbarred is just too kind for a guy, who...YES, for political reasons, tried to destroy three Duke students' lives in order to gain votes. But the political threads are more for political issues, such as Democrats vs. Republicans, abortion, war in Iraq, the economy, things such as this. Nifong affected everyone with what he did. Some like to make it political. It could be. But frankly, I doubt this belongs in the political threads. Nifong does deserve criminal charges as well, and I still believe the one that filed the false charges, the woman in question, definitely deserves prosecution, though they have ruled that out. She had falsely charged several men with rape before and the police let that go. She was seen by her own friends performing sexual acts later that night before getting drunk and passing out. The ones accused could not be linked by DNA evidence and one could not be linked to the time or place of the alleged crime because he had an alibi...an ATM ticket and video at the bank showing he was there. Lots of stuff left out by Nifong. The guy would have been better of losing the election and keeping his right to practice law than what had happened. Yes, the issue had a political motive to the entire thing, and the argument could be made that it belongs in the political forums. But the issue was far more a civil matter and public interest as a whole rather than political, IMHO.

I hope Chris' publications are not another series of "posthumously yours, V.P. Wierwille..." Can he do anything else? As far as his wife is concerned, I deeply sympathize with her MS. Georgio is right...NO ONE deserves that...not Mrs. Geer, and not even Chris. I pray they find a cure for that or God heals her outright in Jesus' name.

I've been looking for those ever since they came up missing in my basement.

My prayers...add them, too, Oh Lord. We love you, templelady!

My kid brother Mike and I used to just sit and watch our family's small black and white TV set with the clumsy rabbit ears in the morning before going to school. It was the late 50s. Mike was 4, I was 6. We used to like watching the gangster movies, especially with pug-faced Edward G. Robinson. Then we would be sent off to school. In those days we little kids could walk to school around the corner without being molested. Anyway, I talked my little brother into skipping kindergarten while I skipped first grade, in order to run around downtown Massachusetts Avenue in Dorchester, I think, for no reason whatsoever. We both pushed buttons on traffic lights causing traffic to stop (you could actually do that there back then) and we went with our small amount of money and bought candy cigarettes. We were spotted on a side alley by the police who got out of the police car (two officers). My 4 year old brother made me do a double-take when he said, "Quick, let's scram. It's the coppers!" It gets better. After being cornered in the alley by the two policemen, they saw we were panting like animals and said, "How did all that running make you feel?" Mike pulled the candy cigarette from his mouth and tossed it on the ground. "Just swell, boys!" He then proceeded to kick the officer closest to him in the shins. The officer howled louder than a wolf at the moon. We came home that day in squad cars. I was punished as the elder for leading him astray. Needless to say after that I directed his attention more to cartoons and less toward Robinson and Bogart movies.

VPW always took a negative look when defending a gospel, as if we were so self-righteous that we would turn away from those who disagreed with the Word, rather than win them over with the Word. VPW basically said the Word was a divider, not a unifying force. The old phrase, divide and conquer is true. So if the Word is a divider, then we are easily conquered. Guess that means that if we have no friends when it comes to the Word, we are NOT super-conquerers in Christ. I prefer to think, especially at GS, that we DO have friends when it comes to the Word.

Oh, forgot, again, the link to the book is: The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ at Amazon My best to those that order it and hopes it blesses your life in some way. And to those who are writing and publishing books at Grease Spot, I collect ex-way author books out of my curiosity to what they believe or what they went through. I always thought that someone here could collect stories of Greasespotters about their experience in TWI. It would be fascinating reading to me. That plus the PFAL review should be published. Eagle

Well, there it all is, excerts from each chapter in the book: The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ The reason for the title I used was because I had always, over 25 years and more, chased what I believed to be the actual fall of man in the garden. I went everywhere and was not satisfied with the answers in any church or ministry. I am convinced by what I finally found in the Bible, however. The term "The Lost History of Jesus Christ" is not only in reference to the textual corruption over centuries but in thousands of churches and ministries world-wide. People trying to explain "contradictions" with only half or no research or foolish methods came up with alternative theology that put Jesus further away from those trying to read the Bible. I hope the book helps. I realize not all here will believe all that is written. But I do hope it gives some hope to those who were in mental bondage by some of this doctrine. Eagle

This is the LAST chapter in The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ An excerpt Chapter 12 Jesus Christ Versus The Da Vinci Code Note: Here, I'll just address The Lamb of the First Year since this issue is critical to TWI in determining Jesus alleged a little over one year ministry. Jesus did in fact do three and a half years. pages 514-517 The Lamb of the First Year Did Jesus marry and have children? Nothing in the Bible states He did, and you must know, that had He had a wife and children, this would have been very significant and noteworthy in the scriptures. with royal blood were expected to marry and carry on the bloodline is true to some extent but not always. The Jews may have had a tradition like that but God never advised it in His Word. The Kings were just allowed to marry and have children while the people came to expect it of their rulers. The Bible lists eunuchs as admirable people who gave up their married lives to serve God. Women who could not get a husband would “bewail their virginity” for a period of time and then go serve the Temple, thereby having an excuse for her maiden status. The Apostle Paul even hinted that “it was better not to marry,” this way, freeing yourself up to serve God. But there is one more important issue surrounding the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God. The Old Testament, when having to put the lamb up for sacri- fice, had to get a certain kind of lamb: Ezekiel 46:13 Thou shalt daily prepare a burnt offering unto the LORD of a lamb of the first year without blemish: thou shalt prepare it every morning. 14And thou shalt prepare a meat offering for it every morning, the sixth part of an ephah, and the third part of an hin of oil, to temper with the fine flour; a meat offering continually by a perpetual ordinance unto the LORD. 15Thus shall they prepare the lamb, and the meat offering, and the oil, every morning for a continual burnt offering. Leviticus 12:6-7 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: 7Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Jesus was the Lamb of God and in order to qualify for atonement of sins, Jesus had to be a “lamb of the first year.” We just need to know what this means. I had called the Ohio State University Department of Agriculture to see if they knew anything about this since I had seen some small articles on their website on sheep. I received an email stating they did not know what a “lamb of the first year” was. I consistently sought different information on this. My old church used to believe it meant that Jesus had to accomplish his ministry in one year, thus “lamb of the first year.” However, I have found too much evidence to conclude that the traditional view of Christ’s ministry was in fact, three and a half years long. It just didn’t fit. My next thought was that it might mean “first-born” and Jesus Christ was a first-born child. He was the only begotten Son of God and first born among those who would become heirs with Him in Heaven and Earth, but somehow, the terminology did not fit. The Hebrews used first born a lot in terms of their children so if this was supposed to be an animal first born of the mother, the terminology would have been exactly that – first born. It was not. I remember going to sleep one night pondering on it and I awakened the next morning saying the first thing that came to my head. “The lamb of the first year has something to do with reproduction.” My saying this out loud awakened my wife, Debra, so, while she was now awake, I asked her what ‘lamb of the first year’ might mean. “I don’t know,” she said, “but Randy (our brother-in law) used to call some of his cows “cows of the first year.” Randy was a farmer in Ohio who worked dairy cows producing milk and often had bulls mate with them on the farm to keep the herd going like any other dairy farmer. He sometimes, when necessary, sold a cow for someone in need. Randy had been doing this all his life. Visiting with Randy and his wife Sandy on one of our trips to his farm, we went out for dinner where I told him I was researching The Da Vinci Code and was trying to determine what a lamb of the first year was. After telling him that my wife, Debra, told me he used that phrase for cows, or “cows of the first year,” I asked him what a “cow of the first year” meant. He said, “It’s a heifer.” A heifer was a young cow that had not had a calf. This got me thinking again, and when we got home, I immediately ran upstairs to search the Internet again on reproductive habits of sheep, or lambs in their first year of life. It was there that I found a lot of information about lambs. While lambs were capable of reproduction in their first year of life, roughly around five or six months, they were still not considered mature enough to reproduce so they were separated from females. Even ewes or female lambs were separated from males in their first year in order to mature a bit more. It was felt the offspring would be larger and healthier this way. A lamb of the first year, as it turned out, was a lamb that was capable for reproduction but had never reproduced. When you find a lamb without spot and blemish, it was a good sign that the lamb, if allowed to reproduce, would give good strong healthy offspring that could help the owner in pretty good shape financially. When a lamb of the first year, one without blemish, was given up as a burnt offering in the Old Testament, what was given up was not only that lamb but its potential offspring. It was a very expensive sacrifice. This kind of offering was called an atonement. And Jesus was called the “Lamb of God,” a lamb who was the atonement for our sins, and was supposed to follow the Law concerning atonement for sins. Jesus was a “lamb of the first year.” The reason you do not see a wife or children mentioned for Jesus Christ is because, simply stated, as the atonement for mankind’s sins, He, too, was not allowed to have offspring. He, too, separated himself from females as far as marriage was concerned in order to fulfill the Law as THE atonement for man’s sins. By sacrificing Himself and His lineage, He saved our lineage and us. Jesus gave up everything so that we might live. Jesus gave up everything obeying God’s will. Jesus is rightfully exalted at the right hand of God. Thus, there is no sense any longer to dispute if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or not, or whether He had children or not. The Word of God speaks out in its text and states that Jesus never married and never had the joy of a wife or children. Jesus gave everything up when He died on that cross. The Da Vinci Code missed this. And the greatest clue to the entire mystery, that finalized that and puts The Da Vinci Code to rest, came from a farmer in Ohio who had worked with animals all of his life and it was my wife Debra who had remembered what he had said and brought him to my attention. Note: There are several more arguments than this in that chapter debating the Da Vinci Code, but ex-wayers should find this intriguing.

This is an excerpt of Chapter 11 from The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ page 377 This teaching is on the record of healing and miracles in the four gospels and the book of Acts. Extensive discussion has come about on how we have been attempting to perform healing services and praying for miracles, and much of how it is done today is almost universal in today’s churches and ministries. However, the record of how Jesus performed healing and miracles and also how his apostles and disciples performed them are a stark contrast to how we have been doing them. It is time to look at the record and see if we can re-establish the knowledge we lost over time to tradition. Teachings such as this, coming straight from the record of Jesus Christ and his apostles may help to shed light and bring on a dramatic revival not only in the United States but also throughout the world. pages 390-391 Starting in Mark 4:35, it begins by Jesus saying they must pass to the other side. E.W. Bullinger believes it is a different miracle that would happen with the swine later. But the records are far too similar and Bullinger is reading far too much into it. The same thing happens after Jesus leaves the multitudes in the ship. There is a storm and he rebukes the wind and says, “Peace, be still” to the sea. These are two commands. But the record continues. Then the next record, like that in Matthew, is Jesus arriving at the country of the “Gadarenes” and the record is that one possessed man from the tombs met him. The difference here is that it doesn’t say with one demonized man that anybody’s way is blocked. This matters later when putting this together. Beginning in Luke 8:22, it begins that on a “certain day” (as opposed to recording chronological events prior to it), Jesus went into his ship with his disciples. Then Jesus was asleep in the ship and a storm arose where Jesus was awakened and then he rebuked the storm and calmed the sea. Jesus and his disciples then arrived at the country of the ‘Gadarenes,’ and were met by a man from the tombs. Gergesa was a small town on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, not far from the today’s Golan Heights. Gergesa is associated with modern day Khersa, also called Kursi. It is located next to a large mountain approximately two thousand feet high to which its steep slopes aim downward and into the Sea of Galilee. At this location, there is only 40 feet of land from the base of the mountains to the water. In the Stephens Greek text, “Gergesenes” is translated from “Gergesenos.” According to the Strong’s Concordance Dictionary, the Gergesenes were also called the Girgadanges (or Girgasites). The Girgadanges were one of the groups of Cantinas that Israel had to kick out of the Promised Land and the land of Israel. They were idol-worshipping people. The later name of Gergesenes seems likely because the name means, “over against Galilee.” Seeing these people called the Girgadanges and then the Gergesenes isn’t that rare. It was not unusual for geographical names to change over time. For example, Jebus was renamed Jerusalem. It wasn’t always called Jerusalem. The King James Version uses the word “Gergasenes” while the New International Version uses the word “Gadarenes.” The reason why is that there are different Greek manuscripts that use Gergasenes, Gadarenes and Gerasenes to identify the people of this region. The Gadarenes were from a town called Gadara. This town is situated about five miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee. The actual city of Kursi is about ten miles from the city of Gadara. They are both in the same region. Matthew’s gospel uses the word “Gergasenes” and Luke’s gospel uses the word “Gadarenes.” The words in the King James Version differ between Matthew and Luke, but the verse in Luke is less disputed because there aren’t any Greek manuscripts that use a word other than “Gadarenes.” Knowing that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, it was translated into Greek as “Gadarenes” but a translator for the King James instead wrote “Gergesenes.” If you check any credible Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, you will find this to be the case. Note: This is the largest chapter in the book. It was taught in TWI and offshoots that Jesus cast the demons into the swine twice because they couldn't reconcile the records. Not true. It was one record. We needed to get past the KJV and also look at the history of the geography of that area to figure things out. There were two demoniacs, but in one gospel only one is addressed because only one was delivered.

This is Chapter 10 of the book The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ The Woman Caught In Adultery An excerpt pages 331-337 Biblical scholars for centuries have wondered how the story of the adulterous woman and Jesus fit into the gospel record. Some call it biblical contradiction. Some say the story is not true. Others say it proves the Bible inaccurate and therefore the Bible is not the Word of God. Yet others, believing there is another answer to the glaring discrepancy of the record in John, seek to find out why it was there, where it came from, and to which gospel did it really belong. The record is the following: John 8:1-11 Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. This story solicits various reactions among biblical scholars as well as various cultures. Scholars traditionally believe this story is genuine and is something Jesus would have done in his ministry, showing the compassionate and merciful side of God and His Word. Others believe that either this story cannot be true or Jesus was light on adultery. Many believe it does not belong in the gospels. This is partly true. The story of the adulterous woman is missing in many early manuscripts as early as 200 A.D. This gives fuel to the fire that allows people to believe that Jesus did no such thing, or if he had done it, was not the prophet they thought after all. The record, some believed, was scandalous and did not belong in any holy writings. Many throughout the modern era have believed this. But why is it included in the gospel of John in chapter eight? And why there? Is the story real or not? It is generally admitted that the record in John 8 disturbs the context. For example, looking at previous verses, it is noted that Jesus had been in the temple from John 7:14-53. John 7:14 Now in the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. Jesus taught in the temple until it was noted that he and everyone else left the temple in verse 53 and after that begins John 8:1: John 7:53-8:1 And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives (as opposed to those who went home). John 8:1 should have been the end of John chapter 7, or rather should have been John 7:54. Then a new start begins the next day in John 8:2. The word “and” starting the sentence gives us a clue that John 7 should have continued as chapter 7, but we instead are in a new chapter anyway. John 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. It is after this point that the scribes and Pharisees brought the adulterous woman unto Jesus and challenged him on the point of the law. This went from John 8:3-11. There are reasons why this verse stands apart from the context. Look at verse 6: John 8:6-8 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he had heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. Note that in verse 2 Jesus had sat down, so he was now sitting down at the end of verse 2. There is no mention of him getting up between verses 2 and 6, so we are reading a record with a picture of him sitting, then suddenly, he is standing in verse 6, without ever having to rise or get up. We know this because it says in verse 6 he had to stoop down to write on the ground. A sitting man just leans over to write on the ground, or doesn’t even have to do that. We are either missing some verses here or this record is out of place in the gospel. Another problem with the context is that John 8:2 ends with “and he sat down, and taught them.” Jesus had been speaking to the people the previous day in the temple and came back to do it again. John 8:12 begins with Jesus teaching them “again,” as if it picks up from verse 2. John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. If you place John 8:2 and John 8:12 together, leaving out the story of the adulterous woman, it reads like this: John 8:2 and 8:12 And early in the morning he came again unto the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. Simply stated, Jesus came back again to the temple, sat down, and again began speaking and teaching to them. It followed exactly what he had been speaking about the previous day. Here is the last record of what Jesus taught the previous day in the temple: John 7:37-38 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Jesus then the next day picked up from there on the same theme, from believing on him to following him. Thus, the story of the woman caught in adultery breaks up the continuous theme Jesus was speaking about. Jesus could have been interrupted, but its doubtful. There was another problem with the record of the adulterous woman that put it out of context. Let’s look at the end of the record of the adulterous woman and the next part of the gospel where Jesus is teaching. Remember that it was the scribes and the Pharisees that brought the woman unto Jesus. Here is that record: John 8:3-5 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? Now verse 9-11: John 8:9-11 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? (the scribes and the Pharisees) hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. In these verses, the scribes and the Pharisees left, the eldest (because in this culture the young followed the example of the eldest) to the youngest. It is noted here that Jesus sees none (of the accusers) but the woman (of those that came to him on this civil case). This is important. The scribes and Pharisees left. Now pick up the record again on the very next verse: John 8:12-13 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13The Pharisees therefore said unto him, thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. I thought the Pharisees had left? The record said so. Yet here they are speaking to Jesus in the very next verses? And yet there is another problem. Executions did not take place in the temple. So if anyone was trying to execute the woman there in front of Jesus, as Jesus alludes to in saying “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” then this place was not in or near the temple. Another problem arises when Jesus writes on the ground and the pictures of the temple have stone walkways. There may be places where you may write on the ground in the temple area but if Jesus were in the temple, Jesus would have been the civil judge in the matter, which he was not. But had Jesus been away from the temple, the writing on the ground makes sense along with the scribes and the Pharisees following him out with the woman that was caught in adultery. But pull John 8:3-11 out of the record here and the Pharisees being there in verses 12 and 13 fits because they were always pretty much in the temple with the people. However, the problem here is, that if this story did not belong here in this part of the gospel, why was it put here in this part of the gospel? Evidence seems to suggest that the record is real. But the way it is presented in scripture is fractured. If this story is indeed true, where was it in the gospels the first time, why was it taken and placed in another part of the gospel records, and was John the original gospel with the original story? The story of the woman caught in adultery does not appear in any of the early manuscripts of the gospel of John. The Papyrus manuscripts number 66 circa 200A.D. and number 75 circa 300 A.D. omit the story. The Codex Vaticanus (B) of the fourth century omits it as well as Codex C (Ephraemi Rescriptus) of the fifth century, Codex L (Regius) of the eighth century, Codex N (Purpureus) of the sixth century, Codex T (Borgianus) of the fifth century, Codex W (Washington manuscript) of the fifth century, Codex Phi (Beratinus) of the sixth century and minuscule manuscript number 33 as well as all versions of Tertullian and Origen, early Christian writers. Other Latin manuscripts of the fifth and sixth century as well as other Greek and Syriac manuscripts omit this story. However, some manuscripts include this story, such as certain miniscule manuscripts after the ninth century including f1 (family 1), family 13 (f13) and 1333. It is found also in manuscript D (Bezae) of the fifth century and part of the Latin tradition. Note: The Way didn't dive into this issue too much other than to say that the record did not fit in John. They were going to research it. But with the turmoil in its ranks, I am sure it was put aside. The chapter details the historical corruption of the church from 200 AD and past 330 AD. Ancient fathers of the church, as it turned out, did NOT like this story of Jesus and the adulteress.