Accused of Heresy?

[Larry N Moore]

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

Eagle I thank you for taking the time to post the excerpts from your book. If I had had the link (above) I wouldn't have asked you to go through the trouble of posting it here. So, unless you find it worth your time and trouble to continue posting excerpts, your above link is more than enuf to satisfy my interest. I'll be putting your book on my list of future purchases.

[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

[Eagle]

Eagle I thank you for taking the time to post the excerpts from your book. If I had had the link (above) I wouldn't have asked you to go through the trouble of posting it here. So, unless you find it worth your time and trouble to continue posting excerpts, your above link is more than enuf to satisfy my interest. I'll be putting your book on my list of future purchases.

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

[Eagle]

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.

[Eagle]

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.

[Eagle]

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".

[Eagle]

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.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Eagle

[Eagle]

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.

[Eagle]

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.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Eagle

[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.

[Eagle]

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.

Edited June 8, 2007 by Eagle

[Larry N Moore]

Eagle, I'm trying to avoid reading your excerpts since I've already decided to buy your book. Even so I did take a quick peek at your latest installment -- won't comment on the contents 'cause it will definitely take more than just a quick peek to adequately address it even if I was inclined to do so. Anyways, I was just wondering if you had an editor/proofreader that worked on it prior to its publication 'cause I noticed a few trivial grammatical and spelling errors. Just curious, 'cause I thought they were being paid to pick up on such things.

Edited June 8, 2007 by Larry N Moore

[Eagle]

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.

[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.

Edited June 8, 2007 by Eagle

[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

[Eagle]

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