Eagle

Here is Chapter 9 of The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ The Case Against the "Six" Denials of Peter pages 301-303 After reviewing the ‘Four Crucified’ Theory originated by E.W. Bullinger and promoted by Victor Paul Wierwille and finding conclusively that there were only two robbers crucified with Jesus, we again must direct our attention to another anomaly originated by E.W. Bullinger and promoted by Victor Paul Wierwille. And this one is called the ‘Six Denials’ Theory. Victor Paul Wierwille reached into the Companion Bible of E.W. Bullinger into Appendix 160 on pages 183-184 of those appendices and began his research into the article there called “The Denials of Peter.” It was here that Wierwille began documenting his own work on this subject, which was added into his book, Jesus Christ Our Passover. In the second edition of this book in 1992, it was Appendix 9 on pages 495-505. Bullinger is not mentioned within this article as any source of information, but to be fair, it appears as if Wierwille did take much time checking several texts to see if ‘six’ denials were present. However, knowing Wierwille to be a big fan of Bullinger’s works, he no doubt got the idea from Bullinger the same as he got the idea for the ‘four’ crucified. The following is what Wierwille believes to be the order of events according to his interpretation of Peter’s denials of the Lord Jesus Christ: Peter’s Denials – The Structure Six denials rather than three is his premise. 1. One denial while Jesus was before Annas by a young female doorkeeper as he entered the door from the street to the courtyard. John 18:15-18 2. Second denial Jesus was before Caiaphas, a young maiden who served the high priest. Location by the fire in the Courtyard. Peter was sitting. Matthew 26:69-70, Luke 22:55- 57, Mark 14:66-68a. 3. Third denial occurred while Jesus was before Caiaphas, also by the fire in the courtyard. The accuser was a man. Luke 22:58 4. The First Cock-crowing Mark 14:68b 5. The fourth denial occurred while Jesus was before Caiaphas. It happened in the porch area, where the large door or gate was. The accuser was a maiden who served the high priest, whom Wierwille states is a different maiden from the accuser who prompted denial number two. (Matthew 26:71-72, Mark 14:69-70a.) 6. The fifth denial occurred while Jesus was before Caiaphas. It happened in the courtyard area again with Peter standing next to the fire. This time several accusers. (Matthew 26:73- 74a; Mark 14:70b-71, John 18:25) 7. The sixth denial occurred immediately after the fifth at the fire in the courtyard. Accuser was a servant of the high priest who had been present at Jesus’ arrest in the garden. (Luke 22:59-60a; John 18:26-27a) 8. Second cock-crowing. (Matthew 26:74b, Mark 14:72a, Luke 22:60b, John 18:27b) 9. The use of the word “another” in these records of the denial is in dispute. 10. The two cock-crowings are rendered as literal cock-crowings. 11. “Twice shalt thou deny me thrice” is rendered by Wierwille as the translation for Mark 14:30 and Mark 14:72. It must be further mentioned that, although Bullinger and Wierwille say Peter denied Jesus six times, each gospel renders no more than three denials by Peter. page 306 As you can see, there are only three denials listed in each gospel. Again, why would God spread different denials around in four gospels without at least mentioning all six in one of them? This is my case. I am here to prove that the traditional view of three denials by Peter is correct. There were not six denials. There were only three. For the record, we must examine each denial in its context in each gospel account together, view the comparison in each account of each denial and then set up a chronology of the event. page 308-309 Note that Wierwille and Bullinger try to pull out differences in each of these accounts. Matthew said Peter was “without in the palace” while Mark says Peter was “beneath the palace.” Also noted differences are a “damsel” in Matthew and John and a “maiden” or “maid” in Mark and Luke. John seems to indicate that the maid that kept the door challenged Peter at the door. This would seem to be the biggest discrepancy. While both Wierwille and Bullinger may not have used these exact differences in their publications, this is how they work. In other words, almost any difference in scripture must mean separate events or persons because God’s scripture is perfect and got does not contradict Himself. First, most theologians know God does not contradict Himself. The problem comes into play when the holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit wrote it in their own dialects or languages. There are differences, but that does not mean there are contradictions. The different scriptures are the same record in the words of different men with differences in how they were said, but nothing contradicting the factual event that they are describing. Though Wierwille and Bullinger didn’t bring this up, those that study their way of biblical interpretation might see a difference in the identity of the woman of the first denial being a damsel in two records and a maid in the other two. Those that do not use a simple concordance would assume they are different records based on this kind of research and thinking. But the reason Wierwille and Bullinger did not bring this up as an example of differences was the fact that the words used for ‘damsel’ and ‘maid’ are the same Greek word paidiskē, and the only reason they are different in the different gospel accounts was due to the way different King James translators used that Greek word. A damsel and a maid are the same thing. The issue of the difference between Peter being at the door, “without in the palace,” “beneath the palace,” or in “the midst of the hall” as the record in Luke says, is that then we have differences in locations of denials which could leave people to believe that in fact, they were all different denials or God contradicted himself, or that the men writing the gospels did not do it through God. To be either “without in the palace” or “beneath or below the palace” meant to be in the palace courtyard. Thus, Matthew and Mark place the first denial in the same place by a woman, a damsel or maid. In Luke, the place was a “hall,” but the Greek word used for that location is aulē, which means a ‘yard’ or ‘court,’ or ‘courtyard.’ Again, the rendering of the Greek word used in Luke matches Matthew and Mark. It is the same place. However John did pose a problem. John seems to indicate that Peter denied Jesus to the maid coming in the door. It appears to be a different location hence a different denial. page 319 Wierwille claimed the first denial was while Jesus was before Annas and was by the young female doorkeeper (the first maiden) as he entered the door from the street of the courtyard. But the scripture does not say that. As explained previously, the young maiden approached him later because he did not keep with the other disciple of Jesus and instead went his separate way into the courtyard. This is what caused that question of the maiden to Peter in the first place. Wierwille also assumes that the first denial listed in Matthew is another maiden or damsel questioning if he was with Jesus but is actually another maiden other than the one listed in John on the first denial because of the location. But John does not make specifically clear where that maiden questioned Peter, only that she did. Matthew tells the place, which was not at the door but in the courtyard. These are not two different denials but one in the same. Wierwille’s first and second denials are one and the same, and are just the records of the first denial only. Peter was beside the fire in the courtyard sitting at the time of the first denial. Note The chapter shares the approximate times of each denial, only counting three after all.

I was in Vietnam. And I had flashbacks. But the flashbacks are not of Vietnam. They are of TWI. I hear voices from the past, such as... "Let me reprove you..." "If you don't like it you can leave!" "If you leave, you'll be a greasespot by midnight!" "Okay you're not a greasespot after last night, but you will be by tonight...!" "Devil spirits look for disorganization, other Christian music, and how your couch is set against the wall making complete sense for ambiance in the room, so we must move the couch to make it look different so we can feel important and spiritual." "If you don't tithe, God won't even spit in your direction..." "If you don't sell your house and give your money to this ministry, God won't even spit in your direction." "If you don't give 15% of your income, God won't even spit in your direction." "You're not Way Corps, so God isn't spitting in your direction." Way Corps: "We feel used, abused and like crap. God is spitting in our direction." Note: I heard all these voices while stringing chairs and practicing my etiquette at Pizza Hut. A psychiatric unit was called. Thankfully, they had prescription drugs. I still have flashbacks but I just don't feel bad about it...

An excerpt from one of THE favorites from The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ Chapter 8 The Case Against The "Four" Crucified With Jesus pages 245-249 It is now being taught in several churches and ministries that split from Victor Paul Wierwille’s Way International, as well as is being continued in the Way International itself that there were four crucified with Jesus, not just two. There were five crosses at Calvary, not just three. The teaching did not originate from the Way or by Victor Paul Wierwille but by E.W. Bullinger in Appendix 164 of his Companion Bible entitled, The “Others” Crucified With The Lord. There were several compelling arguments to possibly indicate why there were four, not two crucified with Christ. They are the following: • Matthew and Mark use the word “robbers” or thieves while Luke uses the word “malefactors,” which means “evildoers.” • While all robbers are evildoers, all malefactors (or evildoers) are not necessarily robbers. • In Matthew and Mark, both thieves (or robbers) “revile” Jesus. In Luke, only one of the malefactors reviles Jesus while the other defends him. In John, the two malefactors discussion is not brought up at all other than that two were crucified with Jesus. • The Greek words used are different for robbers and malefactors. The Greek for the two robbers was duo lēstai which emphatically means two robbers and the Greek for the two malefactors was duo kakourgoi. • Bullinger used a picture of five crosses at Ploubezere near Lannion, in the Cotes-du-Nord, Brittany to state there was a representation of Calvary with five crosses. Wierwille also stated in The Words Way published by the Way, Inc. and copyrighted in 1971 in his study of The Four Crucified With Jesus on page 237 in the footnotes that according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica the “alter slab” when concentrated in a Roman Catholic Church has cut it in five crosses. One cross is in the center and one cross is in each of its four corners. He believed this may be a practice associated with the idea four were crucified with Jesus. • Both Bullinger and Wierwille state that there was an order of events in the Bible. The first was that the soldiers cruci- fied Jesus, then parted his garments, the sat down, then the two robbers were crucified with him. This was the record in both Matthew and Mark. In Luke it states the malefactors were crucified with him (then, according to Bullinger and Wierwille), the soldiers parted his raiment (garments) and cast lots. In John it states the same as Luke but does not indicate that they were the thieves or the malefactors. • Wierwille states that the word “midst” means in the middle. For example: John 19:17-18 And he bearing a cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. Wierwille went on to say that you cannot use “middle” when crucified between two others but rather the word “between.” He claimed that the word “midst” indicated four, six, or eight. • Wierwille also cites the Stephens Greek text from where the King James was translated for John 19:18: “and with him, others two on this side and on that side.” The word “one” in John 19:18 in English has no corresponding Greek word attached to it. The translators then put the word [one] in brackets like that to indicate an addition or what they thought the verse meant. • Wierwille also asserts that John 19:32-33 mentions the order of death in a peculiar fashion: “Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs.” Here, Wierwille states that the soldiers went in an order. If there were five, then the soldiers broke the legs of the first, the other cruci- fied “with” him (or the second in the row), then came to Jesus (in the middle of four others, thereby being third from whichever direction the soldiers began) and saw that he was dead already and did not brake his legs. • E.W. Bullinger and V.P. Wierwille have this order of events. Jesus and the two malefactors were brought up and cruci- fied at pretty much the same time. Jesus was in the middle of two malefactors being crucified. The soldiers then parted Jesus garments and cast lots, then brought up the robbers to be crucified and put them outside the malefactors. That made five crucified. Then when it came time to speed up the deaths of those crucified, the soldiers got (from whichever direction, it did not matter) a robber first, a malefactor second (note the “other crucified “with” him, meaning one of the malefactors). According to Wierwille in his book previously mentioned, the word “with” was the Greek word sun, meaning in close proximity with. The word “him” did not refer to Jesus but back to the robber and the malefactor was crucified with the robber in close proximity and not in reference to any time in this verse. • Wierwille also asserts that the word “other” in John 19:32 is the Greek word allos. He claims this word is used when more than just two are involved. In Luke 23:32 the word other is used there as well. But it is the Greek word heteros. “And there were two other, malefactors, led with him.” Wierwille states the Greek word heteros is used when only two are involved. Thus for the record in John 19:32, as the soldiers were going to break the legs of those crucified, the word allos was used to indicate more than two being crucified with Christ, while in Luke 23:32, the malefactors led “with” him, the “other” was the Greek word heteros which indicated just two sent to be crucified “with” him as opposed to the robbers not crucified “with” Jesus (at the same time) but later after the soldiers took Jesus garments and cast lots. These ten arguments look very solid except for the fact that they are all derived from an assumed premise that four must have been crucified with Christ in order to explain the contradictions in the English translation we have today. There are other ways to investigate these contradictions and I am here to say that there should have been a question first asked of the individual reader of scripture before going into all of the speculations by Bullinger and Wierwille. Why would God, who inspired the scriptures, put two thieves crucified in two gospels and not include them in the other two, then put the other two malefactors in Luke only, and John mentioning only two with no distinction of which of these ‘pairs’ they were? Also, why is there a consistent number of “two” crucified in each gospel, regardless of what they each were, robber or malefactor? It would seem that God is making it very hard for us to track information down, or we just have mistranslated a few key words in scripture and there may have just been only two crucified with Christ, making only three, not five, crosses at Calvary. The traditional Christian viewpoint may have been accurate after all. I am here to challenge and prove that three, not five, were crucified that day. Note: The chapter WILL dismantle EVERY argument in favor of four crucified.

Now an excerpt from The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ Chapter 7 Who Were The Wise Men? pages 241-242 Shem’s line carried the Word of God. Shem’s line was leading at this point. The word “Shem” literally means, “name.” When in verse 1 it said one language, it literally meant there was only one language. One speech however refers to subject matter of what is spoken in that language. And at that time they were (past tense) united under one God, one Savior, the promised seed or Messiah, and all were led by Shemites. In verse 2, from the east, means “eastward.” They settled in Shinar, which is Babylonia. In verse 4, the phrase “whose top may reach unto heaven, the words “may reach” are italicized. Its actual meaning is a tower with its top with the heavens. The zodiac was going to be placed on the top of a tower or building called a ziggurat. But then the people said, “let us make us a name,” or instead, literally, “let us make us a Shem,” which strictly meant, a new line for the Messiah. And in doing that, they would build a tower, change the meaning of the heavens to point to their “Shem,” and await a “new Messiah.” Trouble must have been brewing in the people, and factions occurred. After the record, it was clear no one agreed entirely on a new name or “Shem.” Josephus reports in his Antiquities of the Jews Chapter IV:2, that the new leader would be Nimrod. Josephus also says the reason they built a tower made of bitumen, which was not able to admit water. Did the people in breaking from God decide they could beat another universal flood? Did they try to make a waterproof tower to live in while Nimrod led, its very top of the tower with new stellar signs, in direct defiance of God? Did not the people yet know that God promised never to flood the earth again? Did they forget all this? Whatever the case, God decided that they were not only polluting and terminating the Christ line, but also dooming mankind to eternal death without resurrection with this action. It was the first record as well for a one-world government, and it was not going so well. Babel means “confusion.” Changing the language of people does not interfere with their free-will thinking, but it does run interference with plans to appoint and enforce a new Messiah, and eliminate the record of God’s Word in the stars. The people were still free to do as they pleased. God gave the language, and God took it away. Verse 9 states God confounded the language first, and then they scattered abroad. There is no mistaking it. God changed the languages of the people to defend and save His Son and all mankind with him. As people scattered abroad, they most likely did appoint new “Shems” and make new zodiacal signs. The world now has several different kinds of Zodiacs listed on record. The Chinese have the following signs: the dog, dragon, horse, monkey, pig, ox, rabbit, rat, rooster, sheep, snake, and tiger. That makes twelve signs. The American Indian Zodiac is this: the Otter represented Aquarius, the Wolf was Pisces, the Falcon was Aries, the Beaver was Taurus, the Deer was Gemini, the Woodpecker was Cancer, the salmon was Leo, the Brown Bear was Virgo, the Crow was Libra, the Snake was Scorpio, the Owl was Sagittarius, and the Goose was Capricorn. There are several African versions of the zodiac. There is a Babylonian Zodiac, an Egyptian Zodiac, Assyrian Zodiac, a Mayan Zodiac, and the list goes on. Most have twelve signs but some have more than that. Some of the signs are the same though many of them show a common number and link to an ancient source. The corruption of the zodiac began with the Tower of Babel but holy men of God kept the original meaning of Christ in the stars alive. By the time of Christ, even Israel had lost it even with the record within the temple itself. Thus we have the reason for God to send Daniel’s trained Magi, or wise men, more than four hundred years later, en route to Jerusalem to find the King of the Jews. The Magi, when seeing the signs in the heavens at the time of Jesus’ birth, traveled extensively to the court of the king expecting to see the new Messiah. They saw Herod. Herod’s men pointed to Micah 5:2 as to the source where the Messiah would be born. Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Note: The history of the wise men throughout the Bible and the connection between the cherubim and the heavens is discussed.

Continued... Another list of chapters from The Genesis Pursuit - The Lost History of Jesus Christ Chapter 6 pages 185-188 The Lake of Fire - The Lost Hebrew Idiom Idiom – Latin idioma and Greek idiōma; to make a person’s own, to make proper or peculiar, from idios – one’s own, proper, peculiar. 1. The language proper or peculiar to a people (a tongue) or to a district, community, or class (a dialect). 2. The syntactical, grammatical, or structural form peculiar to any language; the genius, habit, or cast of a language. 3. An expression established in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning that cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements. - From Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition © 1954 The Lake of Fire. We look at the Bible and wince at these words. According to our traditional thinking, after God’s judgment, all evildoers or those not born of God’s Spirit are thrown into the Lake of Fire with the Devil and his angels for all of eternity, to burn alive forever and ever without any hope of relief or salvation and forever cut off from God and Heaven. Yet we also read in the Bible of God’s everlasting and eternal mercy. For some reason, the two ideas do not mix. And yet, if this is to be God’s Word, there cannot be any contradiction in these two meanings. II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. It says in the Bible that God inspired all scripture (including the book of Revelation). If this is true and we are to believe that God is perfect, then His Word must also be perfect. II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (Spirit). This verse means that man may have spoken prophecy, but only as the Holy Spirit or God moved them. Whatever has been written or spoken in scripture or prophecy was inspired or moved by God. Therefore, can there be any error? Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. The Word of God states that the Word itself is pure, unde- filed, uncontaminated, seven times (perfectly). It is stating that the Word is perfect. Then the Word of God goes one step further in its declaration: Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward (facing) thy holy temple (place) and praise thy name for thy loving-kindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy Word above all thy name. The Word of God was placed above the name of God itself. God literally puts His Word ahead of Himself. What God stands for is more important to God than God Himself. Furthermore, in this same statement, God’s name is praised for His loving-kindness, which in dealing with something like the Lake of Fire still looks a bit odd. Yet there is more in God’s Word about His love and mercy. I Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good; for his mercy endureth forever. His mercy is forever. However, there may be a qualifier to the mercy. Psalm 103:17-18 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children; 18to such as keep his covenant and to those that remember his commandments to do them. Here, the mercy is delegated to God’s own people. Not to those that despise, ignore or hate God and His people. But a question still begs. There are those of us here that as much as we might even go so far as to hate someone, sooner or later there is a limit to the punishment we would even inflict on them. Ultimately there is a limit to even the suffering of our enemies that we would want to happen to them. We might wish death on them but would we wish something worse than death? Eternal fire burning in a pit without any end? Let’s pose a question here now. If you had an enemy that you were fighting over a fiery smoldering pit and you succeeded in tossing him off into the pit so that you would live and he would die, and then you saw that your enemy was screaming in complete and utter agony and was not dying, would you let him live in this horrendous agony? Assume for the moment no one including yourself could save him. And suppose for the moment you had a loaded rifle that could end his life. Would you? The odds are that the screaming even of your worst enemy would ultimately get to you and you would pick up that rifle and aim to put an end to his life and his agony. You would do a mercy killing. However, let’s point out here first that God is not in the business of doing mercy killings, either, frankly because He could save them when others could not. But if mercy would ultimately touch us in this situation, would not God’s mercy be even greater than ours? According to the Lake of Fire scenario, it appears God would have no mercy on His enemies. This seems strange especially when His only begotten Son advised us to love our enemies. However, in that context, it was to win over the enemy. In the end time, those who were not won over face this ultimate punishment. Just what is going on with this Lake of Fire? Note: The chapter takes exception to the idea you will "burn" in hell.

I remember these courses. I took them all and passed at least two of them.

And finally tonight, an excerpt from Chapter 5 of The Genesis Pursuit: The Foreknowledge of God pages 163-168 Who is the “Lucifer” of Isaiah 14:12-17? Isaiah as shown in verse 4 is addressing the King of Babylon: Isaiah 14:3-4 And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, 4that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! The golden city ceased! The rest of the chapter is addressed to the king of Babylon and not to the devil. If this is so, who is Lucifer and what is being addressed? To get a clue, note that other versions do not use “Lucifer” but “Day Star.” The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is as follows for Isaiah 14:12: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; 14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. 16Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, 17who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?’ In the King James translation, verse 12 reads: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! So how did we get the name Lucifer in the King James? The term Lucifer comes not from the Hebrew or even from the Greek translation (Septuagint), but from the 4th century A.D. Latin translation of this verse: “quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.” But in 4th century Latin the term “Lucifer” was a name for Venus, especially as the morning star, derived from a term meaning “bright light,” or the verbal form “to shine brightly.” The same word is used in other places in the Latin Vulgate to translate Hebrew terms that mean “bright,” especially associated with the sky: Job 11:17 And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday; thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning. 2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. It also occurs in the plural (luciferum) in Job 38:32 to refer to a zodiacal constellation. Job 38:32 Canst though bring forth Mazzaroth (the twelve signs of the zodiac or in Latin, luciferum) in his season? Or canst though guide Arcturus with his sons? (Ursa Major – also called the Bear and his offspring) The Babylonians worshipped as gods the manifestations of celestial bodies. It is from Babylon that we get the signs of the Zodiac representing the constellations. We know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, were Babylonian celestial deities. We would find this in most other translations from the Hebrew. But who are these Babylonian gods and where did they come from? Were they very important? There is some debate about the exact origin of the original Hebrew word helel in Isaiah 14:12. But the strongest possibility is that it comes from a verbal root that means “to shine brightly,” as well as “to offer praise” (where we get the phrase hallelu yah). In any case, the noun form is the Hebrew term for the morning star, in most cases the planet Venus. Both the second century B.C. Greek translation in the Septuagint and the 4th century A.D. Latin translation in the Latin Vulgate understand this to be the meaning of the Hebrew word helel. The ancient Babylonians had a large pantheon of gods. One of chief Gods was “El,” and his wife was “Asherah.” El and Asherah had about 70 children who were gods themselves. One of these gods was “Baal,” whom Asherah spent most of her time with. Scripture mentions Baal and Asherah several times. Two more of El and Asherah’s children were twins: Shahar and Shalim, brothers of Baal. In the Babylonian pantheon, Shahar was the god of the dawn, and his twin brother Shalim was god of the dusk. Shahar himself also had a son, Helel. The Babylonians believed that the planet Venus, when it appeared as a star in the morning, literally was Helel, the son of Shahar, and grandson of El. They worshipped Helel the morning star and considered him one of the more important gods. So the literal translation is this for Isaiah 14:12: Isaiah 14:12 How art though fallen from heaven, O Helel, son of Shahar! How art thou cut to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! The prophet Isaiah went to the Babylonian king and gave him God’s message. The Babylonian king is referred to as so high-minded that he is referred to as the chief Babylonian deity, his own god. God is telling him that neither he nor his gods will save his reign. Does this mean that the devil’s name is not Lucifer? Well, picture this verse in Revelation, where it gives all the names of the adversary: Revelation 20:2-3 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. He was called in the book of Revelation the following: dragon, serpent, devil, and Satan. There was no mention of a name of Lucifer. No mention he was an archangel of God or the Angel of Light. It only alludes to his being a fallen angel that began an uprising in Heaven and succeeded in getting from what we interpret in scripture to be a third of the angels to go to his side against God. Granted, this is a powerful following. But it did not succeed. Other forms of the word are used in similar ways to refer to light or the stars. And this reflects the Greek (Septuagint) translation’s use of heosphoros, “morning star” to translate the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12. So how did we get from Venus, the morning star, to Lucifer being associated with the devil, especially since that term is used in positive ways even in the New Testament? Well, if we begin with some New Testament passages as the best way to interpret the Old Testament, and add some of our assumptions, it is not a long trip at all. In 2 Corinthians 11:14, Paul writes about false apostles: And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. It says Satan “disguises” himself as an angel of light, never saying he was or is an angel of light. And in Luke 10:18-19, at the return of the seventy disciples as they comment on their success, Jesus says: And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.” So, without ever stopping to examine either of those passages to see what was being said in them, and what was meant by the references, we could conclude that the devil or Satan is somehow associated with light and the sky. If we then add the passage from Revelation 12 about the devil, Satan, red dragon, serpent, the symbols begin to run together, again before we have done any real study on any of these passages separately to see what each of them are saying. In Revelation 12 the red dragon with seven heads appears in the sky, and his tail sweeps down a third of the stars to earth, and is then later cast down to the earth along with his angels. Of course, at this point, a great many assumptions are introduced into the reading of the Revelation passage and even though this is obviously extremely figurative language, we just assume what it means. By adding these three passages together without regard to context, and to read them as if they were all speaking in the same way about the same thing to make the same point, we can conclude that we have here a jigsaw puzzle picture of a long ago historical event described in great detail. But of course we have to put the pieces together from various bits scattered through literature written over several centuries apart. Thus it was assumed that if the devil or Satan is not mentioned in Isaiah then Lucifer must be the name Isaiah uses for him. So, we assumed Isaiah was talking about the devil being cast out of heaven and matching that to Revelation kind of puts the idea of the name Lucifer as the “original” name of the devil. But the fact is, Lucifer was the Latin name for Day Star, which originally was translated from Helel, the Babylonian god. The verse was addressed to the king of Babylon, and the king’s habit of making himself equal in authority to the gods he worshipped. Thus, neither Ezekiel 28 nor Isaiah 14 in any way refers to the devil. Note: This chapter attempts to bring the devil down a notch in his reputation of being an "angel of light".

And here's an excerpt from Chapter 4 of The Genesis Pursuit Victory In Christ: The Case Against Christian Possession pages 109-111 Victor Paul Wierwille espoused that no born again Christian son or daughter of God was immune to the attacks of the adversary, i.e., Satan and his devil spirits. He was profoundly against the idea that Christians thought themselves above the attacks of the devil. He began to teach that the devil attacks the mind and controls the Christian there. Somewhere along these lines, the idea that a Christian could become “possessed” by the devil and devil spirits developed, yet while he was alive, there still was not much of a concern about that issue. But one would need a brief history of the time in this ministry when this doctrine came to be a growing, solidified doctrine. When L. Craig Martindale took over as president of the Way Ministry in 1982, he began a series of teachings that emphasized “Athletes In The Spirit.” Much of the teachings of devil spirits and possession had initially been taught in the Advanced Class and then in the Way International’s Way Corps program. The teaching of the “Seed of the Serpent” earlier in the ministry solidified the idea that the adversary had incredible power almost equal with God, and together with the promotion of Christian possession gave Rev. Martindale a foundation which he used as a weapon against those he considered his foes. Martindale didn’t say the devil was more powerful than God, nor did he mean that, but in scripture, it turns out this way. The doctrine was originally meant to “fight back” against the adversary. After the reading of a paper called the Passing of the Patriarch, a paper alleged to have been the final words of Victor Paul Wierwille, to the student and ministry leadership called the Way Corps in April 1986, an attack on leadership began. This finally resulted in what was perceived by many, including myself, as a strange form of paranoia coming down from the trustees about anyone in the ministry and where they stood as far as the Way Trustees were concerned. The idea of devil spirit possession began to grow among the factions in the Way, each accusing the other side of operating “devil spirits.” The idea of a possessed Christian grew into a form of spiritual abuse, where if one follower was suspected of even thinking of being against the leadership in the ministry, then they were deemed “possessed” and many believers began “casting out devil spirits” where devil spirits were not present. Issues such as not believing big enough, not being healed, not tithing, not agreeing with leadership, not attending fellowship, not purchasing Sunday Night tapes or the Way Magazine, not attending Sunday Night fellowship at the Way International grounds, not financially supporting the Way Corps program, and more all resulted in accusations of possession by leadership in the Way. Ultimately, all this information once again became public as it hit the news media and then the Internet. In the Power For Abundant Living (PFAL) class, Wierwille taught that in the Old Testament, the believer had holy spirit “upon.” In the New Testament after Pentecost, this changed by the new birth to holy spirit “within.” This raised a lot of questions among some believers as to why God could not enter into believers in Old Testament times, but could after Pentecost. People could be possessed prior to Pentecost and God could not enter “in,” but we saw that the devil could enter “in.” However after Pentecost, God could enter “in.” What became of the devil to these born-again believers? If God came in now, what becomes of the devil trying to get “in?” Was he left outside, only in this day and time to be “upon” just as God was “upon” in the Old Testament? If God were not allowed “in” prior to Pentecost, why would the devil be allowed “in” after Pentecost? Wierwille must not have caught on to this side of the argument. Did God possess when he entered into new believers? Did he “possess” in the Old Testament times? Does Satan and his devil spirits possess people today? If so, do they “possess” born-again believers? Does the Holy Spirit (God) co-exist with the devil (Satan) in a human body or mind? What is possession? Reviewing “No Automatic Immunization” by V.P. Wierwille Victor Paul Wierwille wrote the paper entitled No Automatic Immunization. The best source may well be Wierwille and the paper originally from the Way International. We have no date on this paper, though it may have been posted in past issues of The Way Magazine.59 It is posted on at least one of the Way’s splinter group websites. This teaching, once public among its members and finally to the general public, at first seems to be a teaching about whether or not a Christian can or cannot be touched or influenced by devil spirits. Later, he does say that the Christian can be possessed. His paper and teaching was based on the way that he resented the fact that Christians believed they could not be touched or possessed by the adversary based on verses of scripture, primarily I John 4:4 Note: It is clear this chapter takes exception to the idea a born-again Christian son or daughter of God could really get "possessed." This was also used as one of the best forms of spiritual abuse.

Okay, here's an excerpt from The Genesis Pursuit from Chapter 3: What Was the Unforgivable Sin? pages 99-100 Many Christians actually believe they have committed the unforgivable sin. To these Christians, they believed they have committed some kind of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in one way or another. Some believed that smoking a cigarette “defiled” the temple of the holy spirit, therefore, committed the unforgivable sin. But the record does not say that if you defile the temple of the holy spirit, you commit the sin but rather “blaspheme” or speak against it. And even then, it is in a context that we must regard. One friend of mine from over thirty-four years ago once told me that he had gotten into a depressed state and then a drunken rage and cursed God, cursing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three he cursed said he, including the Holy Spirit in his drunken rage. For that, he said, he was certainly going to Hell for a sin that could not be forgiven. Yet, he defended the Father, Son, and especially the Holy Spirit and believed in his heart that Jesus was the Messiah and was raised from the dead. He went witnessing with us and boldly proclaimed Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life and sought out salvation for others. For him, he was fully intent on saving as many as possible before he sank into oblivion. Before he was condemned to Hell, he had the opposite intent of an evil person. He wanted not to take as many with him but to make sure as few went with him as possible. There seemed no darkness in him, only the light of someone trying to spread God’s Word of salvation. Something then was amiss in our thinking of the “blasphemy” of the holy spirit. What did it mean? Would God throw his born again sons and daughters away into the Lake of Fire for simply speaking against or cursing the holy spirit? Why the holy spirit? Why not God or Jesus Christ where there seemed to be forgiveness there? What was the meaning of this sin? The unforgivable sin is listed only from the gospels on, first mentioned by Jesus Christ and is addressed to Israel. Note: This sin is NOT what VPW had said it was in PFAL.

Thanks, Larry! I'll continue posting for everyone else who is curious, though.

If my daughter was to have protection it would be a 37 Magnum. Scum bag Ivy League bastards calling her all the time. Especially the ones from the Campus Crusade for Christ who pretend they're religious. Can't trust any of them. They must be interviewed first. It's not American, otherwise. Eagle

This guy is ...well..not the biggest lightbulb. He needs professional help and knows as much of the Bible as he practices. Eagle

Thanks all who responded. I guess that url should do, but just in case, I'll post excerpts from Chapter 2: The Seed of the Serpent: A Problem With Scripture and Common Sense page 89-91 It is now being taught in some churches and ministries that the Adversary could in fact and did in fact have the power, like God, to impart “unholy spirit” into those who were interested in being born again of Satan. As these churches and ministries increase, so this doctrine increases. This kind of thinking is becoming just as powerful a part of doctrine to them as the Trinity is to most Christian churches. But so far, these small ministries and churches are virtually alone in believing this unsubstantiated piece of whatever this doctrine can be called. The doctrine, as far as we know, originated with a man named Victor Paul Wierwille, previously mentioned, and his Way International. Over years the doctrine spread out into its splinter groups and other churches. Since Wierwille was our only known source at the time, we can tell you this. He began by looking at the following scriptures: Genesis 3:14-15 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. In Genesis 3, the serpent is the Adversary, and for the first time after the Fall of Man, God mentions he has seed when He says: “between thy seed and her seed.” Later on, more verses ascribe to making the Adversary like god when reading the following verse: II Corinthians 4:1-4 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. The Adversary, or Satan, to whom this is referring, is the “god of this world.” The Way International said the Word taught there were two gods, one God the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which was the true God, and the god of this world, Satan, the serpent, the adversary, who was the false god. The problem with this statement is that the Bible did not teach that there were only “two” gods, but several gods, such as gods of gold and silver, golden calves, golden serpents, idols, Moloch, the Roman pantheon of gods, and the list goes on. Chief among all these false gods was one that our true God addressed, the “god” of this world because people on earth treat him as a god, not because he is a real god. He is no more a real god than a stone statue that is worshipped as a god. However, because the Way believed the Bible taught an antithesis god to the one true God, they believed in an antithesis of powers as well. If God had the power to make people born again, they believed, then the adversary was given the “right” to do the same. There were a lot of problems with this from the beginning, but no one cared to challenge it then. It is being challenged right now. First, the devil was a fallen angel and an angel was not an omniscient being that could be everywhere at once. This means that if someone decided to “accept Satan as his personal savior” and receive his unholy seed to be a child of the devil, then there had to be an omniscient being capable of being everywhere at once to take all these orders the same way God does. Since God does not hand out unholy spirit, then it falls to the Adversary to try and do it on his own. Of course, an argument to this is that it takes a devil spirit to get the person to the point of becoming born again of the serpent’s seed, or to confess it. He then notifies the Adversary, who then, somehow, can impart unholy “seed” to the person to get him to be “seed of the serpent,” also referred to as “seed boys” by the Way International and some offshoots. Then again, I have to wonder, if the Adversary or Satan is just one limited individual being, just how much of his spirit can he impart to others before he disappears from existence? There is only so much of him to go around. But in God’s case, there is an unlimited portion of spirit for Him to impart. There is also the problem of thinking just why God is required to impart these kinds of equal or superior powers to someone else. Why should he have to do that? He gave freewill for those who want to follow the Adversary and that was all he, the devil, needed. If God didn’t give seed to the Adversary, then who did? What was the seed of the serpent mentioned in Genesis 3:15? Note: Hope this helps lead into Chapter 2, where the Seed of the Serpent is called into question. See you tomorrow. God Bless, Eagle

I had trouble posting a url for the googled version of the book. I am trying again: The Genesis Pursuit by Google Okay, that one worked. But Google does not put the entire book in there and does not do graphics except for the cover. Eagle

Thanks dmiller, for the great feedback, it means a lot. Larry, per your request, I'll post excerpts from the book here on GreaseSpot. Here are excerpts, per chapter, of The Genesis Pursuit: The Lost History of Jesus Christ copyright 2006 Stephen J. Spencer Xulon Press Chapter 1: The Fall and the Redemption of Man The chapter does debate VP Wierwille's and LCM's perception of the fall being sexual in nature: page 20: A past ministry I was involved in took a cue from George Lamsa’s Idioms In The Bible Explained in which he said the tree of knowledge of good and evil metaphorically meant a “sexual relationship.”1 The ministry took further notice of New Testament teachings that declared that the “man has no power over his body but the woman” and that the “woman had no power over her body but the man.” This passage in the bible was referring to the marriage relationship of Christian men and women, and the meaning here politely but bluntly referred to those attempting to sexually satisfy themselves, and that God designed sex as a gift one to another in a Christian marriage relationship. However, when considering the magnitude of the extent of damage from the fall of man, one would think God would spell out much more clearly if this were the case. In fact, the Bible was pretty silent about the act of personal gratification. Summing up, the Bible pretty much recommended against it, as it did not bless the other partner but only one’s self. page 23-25: The Hebrew vs. Lamsa Aramaic Creation Accounts As stated before, Hebrew was common among the Israelites prior to 586 B.C. when the Babylonian captivity occurred, and the Aramaic dialect also took hold of the Hebrew people. Hebrew was kept as a “holy” language and read in the synagogues and the temple, just as some Catholic churches like to read Latin in the Mass. But the language became basically Aramaic. In George Lamsa’s Holy Bible translated from the Aramaic, it was shared that the word “tree of life in the midst of the garden” meant a sexual relationship within a family. This was shared with various ministries and churches around the United States. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was taught metaphorically to mean a sexual relationship. Period. It made one wonder what kind of sexual relationship could be wrong when God gave Eve to Adam and said that she was his wife: Genesis 2:18-25 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Further, the command to God was for Adam and his wife, Eve, to multiply. This means they were commanded to have sex with each other: Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Thus, the interpretation goes, if taken from the Lamsa Aramaic, it must be a forbidden type of sexual relationship. The only way for that to happen, so some churches thought, was, with only two people present, is to sexually satisfy themselves, or self-gratification (masturbation). Verses from the New Testament were taken to collaborate this kind of thought on the fall: I Corinthians 7:1-5 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. What these verses were said to allude to is that in verse 4, it is meant that the wife should not be sexually satisfying herself, but the husband, and the husband should not be sexually satisfying himself, but the wife. My problem with the interpretation of this verse is that the context is fornication, not masturbation. If the context was self-gratification, then it would say in verse 2: “Nevertheless, to avoid self-gratification,” but the word is “fornication.” The word “power” of their own bodies refers only to the fact that the one belongs to the other, and not themselves. In marriage, we have no right to turn ourselves over to another partner. page 27-29 The Babylonian Account of “Lilith” As The Fall This is a rare belief among certain churches and ministries that homosexuality was the cause of the Fall of Man. The reason it is so rare is that one reader can plainly see that there was only one man and one woman in the Garden of Eden when the Fall occurred. But one ministry I experienced taught this doctrine. The belief centers on the serpent, or the devil, turning himself into a woman and had a lesbian affair with Eve, the beginning of the Fall of Man. Where did this come from? If any ministers are looking at Israel during the Babylonian period and are attracted to Aramaic texts, then a few tend to gravitate to teachings of George Lamsa who believed that the Fall of Man was due to some kind of illicit sexual relationship. Since the thought still was alive that the possibly practice this kind of sin having sex with each other, and since the Bible was rather silent on self-gratification, there was only one other option, and that was the fact that the devil was also in the garden. In order for Eve to make this sin, she had to have sex with someone else. It was either the devil came into concretion and had sex with Eve, or something else. The one ministry that worked this belief was not all that worked up against extra-marital sex or fornication, so it fell to the only possible sexual sin left – homosexuality and lesbianism. And since we were dealing with Aramaic, one minister I knew went into Jewish mythology formed from Babylonian folklore and pulled out a creature named “Lilith.”4 Lilith is a Jewish myth associated with demons and the demonic world. She has been associated with the devil, and was known as a seductress. Some accounts have her as the Serpent seducing Eve, causing Eve to have a menstrual period, and then convinced Adam to have intercourse with Eve during the period, a sinful act in the Law. The problem with that is that Lilith has several stories, one of them being the former wife of Adam before Eve. Lilith is an invented character, and the Law did not come for thousands of years after Adam and Eve. Although the devil is not made up, and that the allusion here is that the devil, being real, is just portrayed as Lilith in fables, the fable had true origins. Still, since logic escapes every point of that account, it cannot be taken seriously. What then, caused the sexual nature of the interpretation of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Aramaic as well as the sexual nature of the Tree of Life? Few Hebrew versions allude to a sexual sin in the Fall but upon reading the heavy figures of speech does not offer much in the immediate context either. But if the sin was not sexual, how did it work its way into the Jewish thoughts of the Fall after the common people began to change their language from Hebrew Chaldee to Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity? Note: This is Chapter 1, tonight, it takes a lot of work pulling text from the book and posting it here. Just excerpts. I can post a chapter a night on this thread, so I'll do that. See you tomorrow. This was an excerpt into my debate on the Fall by Wierwille and Martindale, though I try not to mention their names all that much on this one. Some other churches believe some of this, too. I present what I feel is the Fall using scripture, history, etc. in the chapter so that one is not just left with trying to disprove a theory without replacing it with what I think it really is. God Bless... Eagle

Thanks Tom B. I appreciate what you said. Jumpin Jive, I can't see how you found that "Wayish". I even used more exhaustive research methods than TWI taught. My issues with TWI doctrine have to be concluded as "non-Wayish" or "anti-Wayish." My conclusions are the opposite of "Wayish." I think you get the idea it was Wayish from reading the issues I had with the Way on doctrine. The issues I had in the book were deliberately directed at the Way's doctrine, therefore could be said it "looked Wayish." Larry, I could post a few excepts here. I'll have that done tomorrow. I think you can google it and I am working with Amazon so people can "read inside." Thank you all. Eagle

Lorna: Concerning VP saying that people can be born again of the Devil's seed: See pages 319-320, Power For Abundant Living, by Victor Paul Wierwille, in the chapter of the Unforgivable Sin. He is quoted exactly as saying that. That is what he believed. Concerning the Lake of Fire, I do not quote Wierwille as doing anything on that but did a further research into the work of Ernest Martin Ph.D. God Bless you, Lorna. Hope this helps... EyesOpen: I just HAVE to get your book now. It intrigues me you research independently. PLEASE let me know when it is published.

EyesOpen: The cover art by the book was supplied by the publisher. The publisher is a self publisher because I knew the book would be too controversial for a traditional Christian publisher. Surprisingly, many online Christian bookstores picked it up, too, and I found that an occasional Christian or secular bookstore in the U.S. and Britain picked it up, too. No chains picked it up yet. Just independent stores I see on the net from time to time. Barnes & Noble picked up Patrick Heron's book and it sold so well that Patrick's book, which was self-published (one of the few to be picked up by a chain), was bought by a regular secular publisher. I am in the middle of writing my second book which has nothing to do with TWI. Concerning the publishing of your book, get it copyrighted and then put it on CD and seek out a traditional publisher, whether Christian or secular. If it fails there, you can self-publish then. Don't let major publishers make you believe your book isn't worth it when you know for a fact people would not only want to read it, but buy it for others to read. I'd be fascinated in seeing what you wrote and buying a copy myself. I kind of like to collect books by ex-TWI members if I can find them. There are so many ideas I never saw myself. God's Greatest to you! Eagle

Amen, brother.

Left November 1, 1992. Exactly. Got TOO Weird.

I awakened one night in the Army to my fist and forearm driven through drywall. I must have had a bad dream and slugged the wall. I always was fighting...but I suppose I also did it in my dreams.

Joe: I read your bio in your member profile and your attached webpage and I was fascinated by your life story. The ones who think this heresy most likely take offense to chapters 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9. There are 12 chapters. The main thrust is to prove that the devil was not as powerful as TWI promoted. I debated the seed of the Serpent, a critical Way Doctrine, the Unforgivable Sin, another critical Way doctrine associated with the Seed of the Serpent theory, and debated if those with the Holy Spirit of God could really be possessed if God was within them, which drove a lot of them nuts. I also defended the traditional two crucified with Christ instead of four, and defended the traditional three denials of Peter rather than six. Looking at your bio, the only chapter you may not agree with is the one where I discuss the history of the Lake of Fire. Then again, who knows? God's best to you, Joe, and to your family!

EyesOpen: Thanks so much! You must have a copy of the book. The book being long, detailed and exhaustive, you need a bookmark. The purpose of that was that while I was with TWI, we were always told to "Chapter and Verse" everything, thus 10 pages of scripture index used in a book 557 pages long. Also needed was history, archeology and chronology of texts used in the chapters, 10 more pages of subject index. References, notes, and illustrations took another 10 pages. Problem was, even after all that, I was accused of "not using the Word". I kid you not. I have to assume they meant the Word as brought forth by VPW. I hope you enjoy the rest of the book! God Bless! Eagle

Wordwolf and Jeanism: Thanks for responding. Well, I have to assume neither of you care if you're called a "heretic" or not. The book has 12 chapters, disputes many of Wierwille's doctrines in PFAL and other teachings, including his conclusions on "The Fall of Man", "Born Again of the Wrong Seed or also called Seed of the Serpent", "The Unforgivable Sin", why Christians cannot be "possessed", the Four Crucified with Christ, the Six Denials of Peter, and other issues. In other words, a great deal of what he taught. The book also studies the the Woman Caught in Adultery, the Lake of Fire and the Da Vinci Code. To sum it up, while my old website was up, I got emails telling me how "off the Word" I was from TWI members and ex-TWI members from some off-shoots. After the book, the emails pretty much stopped, and old friends that we used to hang with formerly of TWI ceased all contact with my wife and I. Lately, I got that CD with the heresy teaching. It didn't directly call me a heretic, just a teaching about how different doctrines among the Ephesians caused division and was called heresy. I got the point. I have to assume I was "causing division" by teaching "heresy". My wife and I have found new friends in a local church. We just moved on. I have to tell people up front that the book opposed Wierwille's stand on those issues. I think even some at GS may be offended, though here I am not "marked and avoided" or branded teaching "heresy". The website again for a review of the book and how to get to the site on Amazon is: The Genesis Pursuit: The Lost History of Jesus Christ The book just say Wierwille (and Bullinger in some cases) was incorrect, but tries to find the correct interpretation of what they were promoting. Hope this helps.

That's quite an accomplishment!