MY RESPONSE TO DERRICK GILLESPIES REVIEW OF MY BOOK (PART 2) BOOK: JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD AUTHOR: JOY PENROSE-DAVIS Upon

analyzing and reviewing my book JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD, Mr. Gillespie claimed it to be riddled with contradictions and essentially claimed me to be a false prophet and an anti-Christ. I responded to him the only way I could with the evidence founded in the Scriptures. I responded to Part 1 of his review (pages 27-31), here and to his critique (pages 1-26), here. In response to his claims of my book being overrun by contradictions, I challenged him to produce a list of those contradictions. The following is my response to the list he has submitted. So blatant is Mr. Gillespies dishonesty that at the very beginning of his review he distorts my words. It is the practice of Mr. Gillespie to accuse me of making a statement which is not true and from that he builds an argument against me in order to discredit me and my work. Such an intent is designed to mislead and deceive the reader. This is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY and DECEPTION in their HIGHEST FORM. Mr. Gillespie also accuses me of "filthy lucre" (greed for money) (1 Pet. 5:2) because my books are on the market for sale. Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous? In the very first paragraph of his review, Mr. Gillespie misquotes me by saying that I said that he is unable to identify a contradictory statement in my book. What I clearly stated is that Mr. Gillespie is unable to identify a contradictory statement. PERIOD. This relates not only to my book but also to any book or statements made. To substantiate my claim, I gave two examples of contradictory statements made and advocated by Mr. Gillespie. Let us now examine these supposed contradictions Mr. Gillespie accuses me of making. In Section One we will examine what he calls my Self-contradictions and in Section Two, what he calls my contradiction of the Bible. SECTION 1: SUPPOSED SELF-CONTRADICTIONS Statement No. 1: On page 166 of her book ("Jesus Christ is not God", 2011) she declares: As we know, Jesus has long ago given up his humanity and has returned to heaven. Thing is, I am not sure on what basis she can say "as we know", since that very statement she herself CONTRADICTED on several other pages of her book. For instance, on page 73 she quotes Scriptures and argues that God will, IN THE FUTURE, judge the world by "THAT MAN" (Acts 17:30,31), and further declared on page 74 that "the man IS [not "was", but "IS"] Jesus Christ" If Jesus "GAVE UP HIS HUMANITY" (according to the author) how can she now declare that Jesus is a MAN or is THAT man"? She needs to decide her own mind. Is he a man today or not?... If Jesus is now just spirit (i.e. not human) how could he NOW be our High Priest after He ascended, since a priest has to

be in all things like whom he represents, and He must be taken from among men? (Heb. 5:1). On page 166 of my book, I made the following statement: As we know, Jesus has long ago given up his humanity and has returned to heaven. Mr. Gillespies contention with this statement is that not only have I contradicted myself but he also questions the basis on which I say, As we know, Jesus hasgiven up his humanity, since in his view Jesus is still human, and hence, still in his humanity. Before coming to earth, Jesus Christ lived in heaven as a glorious spirit being, (even before the first human was created). He was not flesh and blood or flesh and bones as we are. After man sinned, it was the Fathers desire to reconcile man to Himself and so He sent His Son, Jesus Christ to be our Redeemer. In order to be our Redeemer, however, Jesus had to become like us and so it was of necessity that he gave up his glorious spiritual body and took on a fleshly body. Hence, Jesus became human (fully human, not fully God and fully human as many have argued). Having accomplished his mission on earth, Jesus has returned to heaven. The question that we now need to discuss, therefore, is: Is Jesus Christ still human or did he give up his humanity? Is Jesus still flesh and blood today? Does he still experience hunger and thirst? Does he still have the need to sleep? Does death still have dominion over him? Can he still die? If, as according to Mr. Gillespie, Jesus has not given up his humanity, then he is still as he was on earth fully human. He is still today in heaven, in a vile corruptible human body, subject to suffering, pain, death and decay. Such a view, however, is not supported by the scriptures. It is common knowledge that a flesh and blood body cannot live in heaven (1 Cor. 15:50). All the inhabitants of heaven are spirit beings. Every Bible scholar knows this and even non-Bible scholars do, but clearly, Mr. Gillespie is lacking in this knowledge. I guess one cannot fault him for not knowing. Before returning to heaven, Jesus prayed to the Father asking that his glory be restored to him (John 17:5). Did the Father restore this glory or didnt He? Well, we know that He did. The Apostle John in a vision of heaven saw Jesus in his glorified body and described him to us in Rev. 1:13-16. From this description, we know that Jesus is not in a human body. There is no human who fits this depiction. No human has ever lived in a body such as this not even Adam before he sinned. It is obvious that Jesus gave up his earthly body and that his glorious body has been restored to him, hence, Jesus has given up his humanity. It is simply not possible for Jesus to be in such a glorious body without having given up the corruptible one, because the corruptible and the incorruptible cannot co-exist in one body. Mr. Gillespie is of the mistaken belief that Jesus is still flesh and bones because that is the body in which he presented himself after his resurrection. True, that was his earthly body after his resurrection, but that is not the body which he now possesses in heaven because as we have learned a flesh and blood (or flesh and bones) body cannot live in

heaven. To confirm his belief, Mr. Gillespie quotes Eph. 5:30 which states, For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. In researching the Greek language in which the New Testament was written, however, it is discovered that the text in fact says that we are members of Jesus body, but it makes no mention of the words flesh and bones. The phrase, of his flesh, and of his bones does not appear in the original text but was included by the translators. It is important also to point out that it is not flesh and blood or flesh and bones beings only who have bodies, but spirit beings have bodies also (1 Cor. 15:44). It is just that their bodies are different from ours. When the scriptures, therefore, makes reference to the body of Christ, it should not be taken to mean that it could only be referring to his fleshly or human body. It could be referring to either his human body or his spiritual body. It just depends on the context. Interestingly, Mr. Gillespie insists that, Jesus is still man, even today, still in, continued subjection to the Father as the second Adam, a Man, i.e. operating in his continued subordinate roles as the Messianic human even in heaven today, yet he argues that Jesus presently in heaven is co-equal with God the Father. How more contradictory can one get? At the onset, I told you that Mr. Gillespie does not know how to identify a contradictory statement. This just proves my point. Before we address the next question, I want it to be clearly understood that I am not the one who refers to Jesus as man now that he is back in heaven. It is the Scripture that does so and I merely quote from the Scriptures. The question we will now examine is: Since Jesus is no longer in his human body, why does the Scripture still sometimes refer to him as man? (Acts 17:30, 31; 1Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5). Jesus, on occasions is still called man, not because he continues to live in a mans body (because clearly, he does not), but because he is (still) the son of man. (Dan. 7:13; Rev. 1:13; 14:14). Though Jesus has returned to heaven, his being the son of man has not changed. Similarly, when he was on earth as the son of man, in his humanity, his status as the son of God remained unchanged. He was both son of God and son of man at the same (Matt. 12:40; 16:16; John 10:36). The same remains true today. Though Jesus lived in heaven as a glorious spirit being long before he came to earth, it was not until he became man or the son of man that he became our Redeemer. You will observe that all references to Jesus presently as man relate only to him being the son of man and to his work of redemption (Acts 17:31; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5). This also shows undisputedly that it was as a MAN (not as God) that Jesus redeemed us. Jesus does not need to remain in human body to qualify as our High Priest or Mediator, just as he does not need to keep dying to be our Redeemer. Jesus came to earth and lived as a man without sinning, gave his life for us and that is what qualifies him to be our High Priest and Mediator. The Father has committed judgment to Jesus because he is the son of man, and has lived as a man (John 5:22, 27). If Jesus had not experienced life as a man, he could not qualify for these positions. Jesus, however, does not need to

continue living in a human body in order to function in these offices, just as he does not need to keep going to the cross so our sins can be forgiven. Statement No. 2: Secondly, all over her book she argues that when the word "him" is used it cannot mean more than one person, yet as soon as she confronts John 20:28, 29, where Thomas "said unto HIM" [Jesus] "my Lord and my God" suddenly she CONTRADICTS her own selfimposed rule and argues that Thomas was speaking to (OF not TO) two beings when he said unto "HIM" "my Lord and my God". Again I say Joy Penrose-Davis needs to make up her own mind. But it is self-evident why she contradicts her own rule here, and I am smiling. It is a poor exegete of the Bible who accuses Thomas, an ardent Jew and a disciple of Jesus, of taking Gods name in vain (as Mrs. Davis does argue), in a kind of exclamation of surprise (see Exodus 20:7), and then amazingly implies that Jesus ENDORSED his utterance (instead of rebuking him). Boxed into a corner as to who Thomas referred to when he said unto HIM my Lord and my God, she then makes the rather mind boggling statement on page 212 that Thomas was not referring to one person only but to two! Well, if the word him can so apply to more than one person, it immediately calls into question the authors own argumentation about the pronoun him always having a singular being in focus. This breaking of her own rule about the word him shows how she arbitrarily and CONVENIENTLY imposes her own view on the Bible when it suits her! I simply say, this a specious form of sophistry being employed by this author. I have no choice but to reject her teaching on the deeper things of God! Again, Mr. Gillespie is not only guilty of distorting my words but he is downright dishonest and an ARCH-DECEIVER. Nowhere in my book do I accuse Thomas of taking the name of God in vain. Such an idea is not even implied. If Mr. Gillespie is confident in his opposition to my work then there is certainly no need for him to fabricate LIES. But I guess unless he does, he has nothing to oppose. Neither did I say that when Thomas, said unto HIM [Jesus] "my Lord and my God", that Thomas was speaking TO two persons. After the resurrection of Jesus, he appeared to his disciples, but Thomas, (one of the disciples) was absent. When Thomas was told by the other disciples that they had seen Jesus he did not believe. Some days later Jesus appeared to Thomas. In John 20: 26-28 we read the following: And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace, be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. My book clearly indicates that Thomas was speaking TO Jesus only one person. When Thomas said, My Lord and my God, however, he was not REFERRING to one person only but to two to his Lord Jesus Christ as one Person and to the Father, his God, as another Person. How can one arrive at such a conclusion? Well, the scripture is clear that Jesus is Thomas Lord (Luke 17:5; John 13:13-14; 2 Peter 3:18). The scripture is equally

clear that Jesus is not Thomas God (John 17:1-3; 20:17). It is evident, therefore, that there is but one God Whom Thomas acknowledges and worships, but this God is not Jesus; this God is God the Father. You will observe that although Jesus taught his disciples that he is their Lord, nowhere has he ever taught that he is their God. (There is a vast difference between the term Lord and the term God). On the contrary, Jesus taught his disciples that it is the Father alone Who is their God and that the Father is also his (Jesus) God. Thomas knew that both he and Jesus serve and worship the same God (John 20:17). Thomas also knew that Jesus is Gods servant (Isa. 42:1; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27-30 NKJV). Now, being knowledgeable of all these truths, why would Thomas worship Jesus Christ as his God? After Jesus had returned to heaven, it is also evident that the disciples did not acknowledge him as their God. In fact, they still referred to him as Gods servant. The only ONE they acknowledged as God is the Father (Acts 2:32-33, 36; 2 Peter 1:1-2; 2 John 1:3). You will notice also that all those who are redeemed from the earth (Thomas and the other disciples included), do not recognize, acknowledge, honor or worship Jesus Christ as their God? (Rev. 7:9-10). This recognition is only given to the Father. What explanation could there be for such an omission, if Jesus Christ, their Redeemer is indeed their God? Statement No. 3: She argues in several places in her book that whenever the words "beside me there is none other is uttered by God, it automatically excludes Jesus His Son. Yet another glaring CONTRADICTION by her is to argue that despite God in Isaiah 43:11 declared beside me there is no Savior, i.e. in the sense of being "the Savior" from sin and hellfire, yet there is more than one person or beings as the Savior. Mr. Gillespie, as he so frequently does, again distorts my words. Nowhere in my book have I said, 'that whenever the words "beside me there is none other is uttered by God, it automatically excludes Jesus His Son'. On page 126 of my book, I quoted the following passages of Scriptures in which God the Father states that He is the only God. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any (Isa. 44:8). I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me (Isa. 46:9). In my book I argue, that these passages point to God being a single Being and that this single Being is the Father and not the Son. We also observe in the Scriptures where God the Father declares that He is the only Savior. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior (Isa. 43:11). Yet, it is also recorded that Jesus Christ is our Savior (Luke 2:11; Titus 3:6). Mr. Gillespie uses these texts to point out what he calls a glaring CONTRADICTION on my part as he claims that I am inconsistent in my use of the term, beside me there is none other. For example, when the Father says that there is no other God beside Him, the explanation I give in relation to this text is that it is the Father Who is the only God, yet, though He says beside Him there is no Savior, I acknowledge both the Father and Jesus Christ as saviors.

Let me now explain. In several instances, we read in the Scriptures that it is only the Father Who is God. Isaiah 44:8 and 46:9 mentioned above are only two of the many passages that speak to this truth. (See also Isa. 43:10; Deut. 6:4-5; John 17:3; 20:17; Acts 7:55-56; 1 Cor. 1:3; 8:4-7; Eph. 4:6; Rev.7:10). These passages are all substantiated throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. An in-depth study of the Bible reveals that passages which seem to indicate that Jesus Christ is God are either mistranslations or misinterpretations of the Scriptures. We note, however, that although the Father declares that there is no savior beside Him, the scriptures also mention others as saviors (or deliverers). Is this a contradiction? Certainly, not! When the Father states that He is the only Savior, that is exactly the truth. THERE IS NO OTHER! How then does one explain Jesus Christ also being called savior? Whether in heaven or on earth, it is to God the Father alone that ALL power belongs; not to Jesus or anyone else (Matt. 6:13). Irrespective of the circumstance, if God does not save you, no one else can. Not even Jesus! In saving you, however, God may not do so directly. He may send someone to your assistance. Anybody who saves you (from any situation) has been empowered by God to do so. In such instances, the person whom God sends to save you now becomes your savior. This is the case with Jesus. Jesus became our savior because God the Father sent him and empowered him for that purpose (Luke 4:18; 1 John 4:14). This is what Jesus constantly taught; that he did not come of his own accord to be our savior, but that he was sent by his Father (Matt. 10:40; Luke 4:18; John 3:17; 5:30). Jesus, therefore, though our savior, could not have come to save us unless commissioned by Father to do so (Acts 5:31; 13:23). It is important also to note that it is not the Father and the Son alone Who are mentioned in the Scriptures as saviors. In 2 Kings 13:5 and Neh. 9:27 we read that God sent saviors to deliver the children of Israel from the hand of their enemies. These saviors were fellow human beings. It was God the Father Who commissioned these persons to deliver Israel. Unless the Father had sent them and empowered them all their efforts would have been futile. We understand, therefore, that though God is the only Savior, he may empower others to save you. God, however, will never empower another to be God. Statement No. 4: The most shocking of all the self-contradictions by Mrs. Penrose-Davis in her book has to do with worship that she postulates that will be ascribed to Jesus during the millennium. The very premise of her book title makes it plain that in her view Jesus Christ is not God, and in fact she emphasizes right throughout the book that Jesus has no divinity whatsoever (not even in terms of inherited nature from the Father), and so if we worship him as God when he is not (but just a creature like ourselves, as she argues) then we are guilty of idol worship and the breaking of the first two of the Ten Commandments. In fact in her recent response to part 1 of my review of her book she closes that response with the pregnant question: If Jesus Christ is not God and we worship him as God, could that be considered idolatry? Clearly she would answer in

the affirmative. So there is no getting around this teaching of hers that to ever worship Jesus as God results in idol worship and hence is SIN! Let me categorically state that nowhere in my book do I argue that, if we worship him as God when he is not (but just a creature like ourselves) then we are guilty of idol worship and the breaking of the first two of the Ten Commandments, as stated by Mr. Gillespie. This is a BOLDFACE LIE! The book simply aims to show from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is not God or Gods co-equal, but holds absolutely no discussion on whether worshipping Jesus Christ is idol worship and the breaking of the first two of the Ten Commandments and hence is SIN! I CHALLENGE Mr. Gillespie to prove that he is not a LIAR by giving the Chapter and the page where this is written! In the conclusion of my response to Part 1 of Mr. Gillespies review, I asked the readers to ponder this question: If Jesus Christ is not God and we worship him as God, could that be considered idolatry? I chose to ask this question of my readers, because upon the publication of my book this question was posed to me by a number of persons (some of whom insist that it is). I also asked the question because I believe it merits investigation. In asking the question, I did not give a response to it. Mr. Gillespie, however, has answered the question on my behalf and he then uses that answer to build his argument against my book (although the question appears nowhere in the book). That is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY at its greatest! Mr. Gillespie further states: i. She teaches that for a thousand years the Father will allow idolatry to be practiced by all of his creation, i.e. if Jesus really is not God as the Father himself already addresses him in Heb. 1:8. ii. For a thousand years the entire creation will be allowed to break the first two of the Ten Commandments as a means of rewarding a created being (according to Mrs. Penrose-Davis). iii. For a thousand years God the Father will take a vacation from being King Eternal and allow his created son to be a 'figure head' of divinity on his throne, but only as sham, since he really would not have been what he is being proclaimed to be by nature. iv. For a thousand years the entire created universe will reject the Jewish culture inspired by God Himself, and the names accorded to Jesus will not be true names related to his true nature, but will be contrived names conferred on a creature who would not normally be so deserving. These comments are so outrageous that I will not even attempt to defend them. They reflect the MALICIOUSNESS of Mr. Gillespie and the extent to which will go to MISLEAD and DECEIVE others. Please read this Chapter on Isaiah 9:6 of my book and make your own judgment.

SECTION 2: MY SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS OF THE BIBLE Let me first point out that I do not contradict the Bible. What I do contradict are the MISINTERPRETATIONS of Mr. Gillespie and others that are clearly not in line with the Scriptures. I also contradict the MISTRANSLATIONS of Scriptures. Contrary to what some persons believe, the Bible was not originally written in the English Language. The Old Testament was first written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament in Greek. As have been discovered, sometimes the translations into the English Language are inaccurate. THIS IS A TRUTH THAT NO ONE CAN DENY! These mistranslations often result in misunderstandings which lead to misinterpretations of the Scriptures and sometimes cause the Scriptures to appear contradictory. A proper study of the Scriptures, therefore, must involve researching the original languages in which the Bible was written. Statement No. 1: The Bible presents BOTH the fact that the Father is the only true God while at the same time that this same God as addressing his Son (even while a man) as O God in Hebrews 1:8-12 IT'S HARD TO DENY SO MANY TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (AS SHOWN NEXT) SAYING THE SAME THING IN HEBREWS 1:8. I PERSONALLY CHALLENGED MRS. JOY PENROSE-DAVIS TO FIND EVEN A QUARTER OF THE NUMBER OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS SAYING OTHERWISE THAN WHAT GOD HIMSELF SAYS IN HEBREWS 1:8 ABOUT JESUS. SHE CANT, AND SO HER CASE IS NOT JUST WOEFULLY LOST, BUT HER BOOK IS A SHOCKING DENIAL OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS VERY FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH Her thesis in her book stands already refuted, many times over, just by the one simple Scripture in Hebrews 1:8. I say, live with it Mrs. Penrose-Davis! In order to prove that Heb. 1:8 is accurately translated, Mr. Gillespie has amassed several versions of the Bible (all of which carry a mistranslation of this text). He then challenges me to produce a quarter of that amount carrying the translation that I proffer, failing which, in Mr. Gillespies words my, CASE IS NOT JUST WOEFULLY LOST, BUT HER BOOK IS A SHOCKING DENIAL OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS VERY FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH. Mr. Gillespie in his indoctrinated mind believes that if an error is often repeated, in time that error becomes true. Clearly, he does not know that the original meaning of Scripture (or of any other writing or statement) does change because several translators make the same error in translation. Neither does he know that truth is not determined by popular vote. In studying the original Greek in which the New Testament was written it is revealed that Heb. 1:8 is a mistranslated text. If Heb.1:8 is correctly translated (as it is in several versions of the Bible in which it appears that the Father calls His Son God), then Heb. 1:9 makes absolutely no sense. How can the Father in verse eight addresses Jesus as God and immediately in verse nine declares Himself as Jesus God? Can God worship God? Wouldnt this mean that if Jesus is God, he is a lesser God than the Father? Since the Father is Jesus God, on what basis can Mr. Gillespie argue that the Father and Jesus are

co-equal? Is Jesus the Fathers God? Does the Father worship Jesus as His God? If Jesus is God like the Father, shouldnt Jesus be the Fathers God as the Father is Jesus God? Statement No. 2: The Father today has him [Jesus] seated upon and ruling alongside him forevermore on his very own throne (Rev. 3:21; Rev. 22:1, 3). Jesus is not presently seated on the Fathers throne. The following passages of Scriptures show that there is only one superior throne in heaven and that it is occupied by one Person only and that Person is God the Father (Isa. 6:1-13; Rev. 4:1-11; 5:1 ). Jesus is seated on his own throne at the right hand of the Father (Matt. 26:64; Mark 12:36; Acts 2:32-33; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1). It is the Father alone Who presently reigns and rules (Acts 17:24; Eph. 4:6; Rev. 4:2; 19:6). Jesus will not rule with his Father forevermore. Jesus will have a temporary rule which will not begin until his second coming (Dan. 7:13-14). Although the kingdom over which Jesus will reign is an everlasting kingdom, Jesus reign and rule will only be for a specified time. At the end of this reign, he will be required to return the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15: 24-28). Although Jesus will play a prominent role in the New Earth, he will be subject to his Father just like the rest of Gods creation.

Statement No. 3: It CONTRADICTS and rejects the repeated testimony of the bible that Jesus is described as Creator just as his Father is. It is true that the Bible in some instances appears to teach that Jesus Christ is the Creator, but this is due to mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Scriptures. It is the Father alone Who is the Creator but He created through His Son (John 1:3 NKJV). Jesus is a created being (Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14). He came forth from the Father. He is the Fathers begotten (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9). A created being cannot be the Creator and neither can one who is begotten. Moreover, Jesus does not possess the ability or power to qualify him as Creator (John 5:19-20). If he did, he would not have to be taught by his Father (John 8:28). How can Jesus be the Creator when he does not even have the power to give himself life or to keep himself alive? (John 5:26; 6:57; 2 Cor. 13:4). If Jesus does not have the power to give himself life, how could he give life to the creation and if he does not have the power to keep himself alive, how would he be able to sustain his creation? Statement No. 4: Itdenies that he [Jesus] has all the fullness of divinity or the divine nature, or the Godhead. It is not possible for Jesus to possess all the fullness of divinity or the divine nature, or the Godhead, without possessing all the attributes of the Father. The scriptures make it very clear that he does not. Unlike the Father, life is not inherent in

Jesus and neither is he omnipotent nor omniscient (John 5:19-20, 26; 6:57; 2 Cor. 13:4; Mark 13:32). In Col. 2:9, we read the following: For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Some persons erroneously believe that this text teaches that Jesus is God in nature or that he is a member of the Godhead, but this is not so. As we have learned, Jesus does not possess the ability or power of the Father, which makes it impossible for him to possess all the fullness of divinity or the divine nature, or the Godhead. What we learn from Col.2:9, is that because Jesus does not possess the power of the Father, it is necessary for the Father (Who is the Godhead), to indwell Jesus in order for him to effectively carry out certain assignments. We see an example of this while Jesus was on the earth. The Father was indwelling Jesus (John 8:29). The Spirit of the Father had to be upon Jesus to empower him (Isa. 11:1-5; 42:1; 61:1; Luke 3:22; 4:18-19). It was the Father Who was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). The words that Jesus spoke he did not speak of himself (John 14:10). It was the Father Who performed all the miracles through Jesus (John 14:10; Acts 10:38).

Statement No. 5: It CONTRADICTS and rejects that the Father himself, that prophets like Isaiah, that disciples or apostles like Thomas, John, and Paul referred to Jesus as either O God, God, the mighty God, or the great God in several places in the Bible; not because he is the person of the Father but because of his nature as the Fathers only begotten Son. A thorough investigation of the original languages in which the Scripture was written indicates that at no time is Jesus referred to by the term God, except in the case of Isaiah 9:6 where the title of Mighty God is applied to him. Any other reference to Jesus as God is either a mistranslation or a misinterpretation of the scriptures. The title of Mighty God does not presently apply to Jesus and will only be conferred on him temporarily during the period of his reign. When his reign expires, he will be required to return the Kingdom to God the Father and be subject to Him (1 Cor. 15: 24-28). (For a more detailed explanation read Chapter on Isaiah 9:6). Statement No. 5: Yet the book further CONTRADICTS and rejects that Jesus is the express image of the Fathers person or being (Heb.1:2, 3). In his interpretation of this text, Mr. Gillespie claims that Jesus being the express image of the Fathers person or being, means that Jesus is an exact copy of the Father. I both contradict and reject that interpretation because such a view is not supported by the Scriptures. How can Jesus be an exact copy of the Father when the Father has declared

that there is no other being like Him and that He has no equal? (Isa. 40:25; 44:8; 46:5; 9). How can Jesus be an exact copy of the Father yet does not possess all the Fathers attributes (as we earlier learned)? It is important to point out also that a more accurate translation of this text is that Jesus is the express representation of the Father. This means that Jesus, in representing his Father does everything expressly or exactly as instructed by Him (Mark 1:11; John 4:34; 6:38; 8:29). Statement No. 6: Jesus certainly has two natures bound up in one person. Jesus does not have two natures, he only has one. Jesus is presently a glorious spirit being in heaven and that is the nature that he now possesses. He no longer possesses human nature. If that were the case, it would still be possible for Jesus to hunger, thirst, become tired and die. None of these things can again happen to Jesus. Statement No. 7: Be ever mindful readers that no one (at least not me) is asking Mrs. Joy Davis to change the truth that the Father is the one true God. That remains undisturbed as a truth (see John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6). What she is being asked to revisit, and reconsider is the nature of Jesus; he being the "express image of the Fathers person/being, in ALL HIS FULNESS (Heb. 1:3: Col. 2:9). This inescapable reality acts in principle just as any copy of her 'controversial' book manuscript (the 'one true copy') that she has in her office at home; the original that remains unseen. The copy I read (and is here critiquing) is the express image of the one same booknothing less in nature. She has written just one book; not many because of the copies involved; just in the same way there remains one God, despite Jesus is his express image. (My note: Books cannot be compared. A man may reproduce children and though they might be his spitting image, none of them are a duplicate of him. They are all different in some ways). In his above statement, Mr. Gillespie declares, the Father is the one true God. That remains undisturbed as a truth (see John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6). What amazes me is the unwavering efforts of Mr. Gillespie to do all in his power to disturb this undisturbed truth and to have others do likewise. I have tried to uphold and to make known this same truth and for that I have been labeled as misleading, erroneous, deceptive, heretic, antichrist and devilish (to name a few), by Mr. Gillespie. Mr. Gillespie states that he is not asking me, 'to change the truth that the Father is the one true God... What she is being asked to revisit, and reconsider is the nature of Jesus; he being the "express image of the Fathers person/being, in ALL HIS FULNESS. ' I will gladly grant Mr. Gillespies request. I will revisit and reconsider whether Jesus in nature is ALL THE FULLNESS of the Fathers Person or Being. God is Supreme because He possesses certain attributes which distinguish Him from all other beings (whether in heaven or on earth). The question we need to address, therefore, in order to determine if Jesus is God in nature or if he possesses ALL of Gods FULLNESS is: Does Jesus possess ALL the attributes of God the Father? In examining

the Fathers attributes we learn (among other things), that life is inherent in Him (John 5:26), He is omnipotent (Rev. 19:6) and He is Omniscient (1 John 3:20). In comparing Jesus, however, we note that he is lacking in ALL these qualities. The Scriptures clearly show that life is not inherent in Jesus (John 5:26; 6:57; 2 Cor. 13:4), and neither is he Omnipotent nor Omniscient (John 5:19-20; 8:28; Mark 13:32). Well, having done as Mr. Gillespie has requested, and have revisited and reconsidered the nature of Jesus, I have discovered that Jesus in nature is not ALL THE FULNESS of the Fathers Person or Being. I can, therefore, report that the evidence of Scripture has revealed that in nature the Father is far superior to Jesus. Hence, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to be the Supreme God or to be the Fathers co-equal. If Jesus is God, it means that he is a lesser god than the Father. Is Jesus a lesser god, Mr. Gillespie? To reinforce his point that Jesus being the express image of the Father indicates that he (Jesus) possesses ALL the FULNESS of the Fathers Person or Being and is all that God is in nature, Mr. Gillespie uses the analogy of copies made from one book manuscript. In doing so, he contends that it is an inescapable reality that they both act on the same principle. The analogy presented by Mr. Gillespie bears no relevance to the subject because there is a fundamental difference between the two. Copies of books are printed by means of mass production, and so each copy is exactly as the original. That is the intent. God, however, does not create beings by means of mass production. Although Jesus (and even humans) are made in Gods image, it should not be taken to mean that as one copy of a book is exactly like its original so too Jesus or mankind is exactly like the Father. When God makes beings, He does not make them as copies of each other. Every being is uniquely made. There are no two beings that are exactly alike (not even identical twins). Neither are Jesus and the Father exactly alike. God does not duplicate beings and neither has He duplicated Himself. Jesus is not a clone of the Father. The Father is One-of-akind. There is no other being like Him. Jesus is also one-of-a-kind, but he is incomparable to the Father. The Father is superior to Jesus in every way, just as the Father is superior to us in every way, though we are all created in His image and likeness. Statement No 8: Recently Mrs. Penrose-Davis said (ELSEWHERE) that "Jesus glory is INCOMPARABLE to that of the Father's. Father, forgive her for she knows not what she does. How can that be if Jesus is said to have the "FULNESS" of the Father's divine nature or "Godhead" (Col. 2:9), since "FULNESS means nothing less than the full measure? If Jesus is declared to be the EXPRESS image and the very "BRIGHTNESS of His [the Father's] glory" (Heb. 1:2,3), then every act of Joy limiting or downgrading Jesus' own glory is the very same act of lowering that of the Father himself, and to the same degree. Is Jesus glory comparable to that of the Fathers? What does the Father say about His glory? (Isa. 42:8). The Father categorically states that He WILL NOT give His glory to

another. Has the Father changed His mind and given to Jesus a glory equal to His? Another declaration of the Father is that He never changes (Mal. 3:6). Let us consider the following questions? Who is the God of glory? (Acts 7:2). Who is the Father of glory? (Eph. 1:17). To Whom did Jesus say all glory belong? (Matt. 6:13). Whose glory is above the earth and heaven? (Psalm 148:13). Who alone sits on the ONE superior throne in heaven? (Rev. 4; 7:9-11). Who alone is called Majesty? (Heb.1:3; 8:1). To whom do the angels cry, Holy, holy, holy? (Rev. 4:8). When Stephen looked into heaven, whose glory did he see? (Acts 7:55). From Whose face does the earth and the heaven flee away? (Rev. 20:11). From whom did Jesus receive his glory? (John 17:24; Heb. 2:7; 1 Pet. 1:21). Did Jesus have the power to glorify himself? (John 16:14; 17:5). Whose glory was it that raised Jesus from the dead? (Rom. 6:4) When all knees are bowed before Jesus and every tongue confess that he is Lord, who will get the glory? (Phil.2:9-11).

Is Jesus glory comparable to the Fathers? Judge for yourself. I have addressed Mr. Gillespies list of so-called contradictions that he claims are in my book. Using the Scriptures, I have proven him wrong. I have also shown that he does not know how to identify a contradiction, because even common sense tells us that if there is only one true God, there cannot be another. But beyond all that, Mr. Gillespies review has shown that he is a MASTER DECEIVER because he deliberately twists and misrepresents my words in order to mislead others. Dear Reader, if you are prepared to read the Bible with an OPEN mind and be willing to accept its teachings, you will begin to see clearly that Jesus Christ is not the Supreme Being and neither is he equal with the Father. The scriptures tell us in direct words that God is a single Being (Deut. 6:4-5; Isa. 43:10; 44:8; 46:9; Matt.19:17; 1 Cor. 8:4; 1 Tim.2:5; James 2:19). The scriptures also tell us in direct words that it is only the Father Who is God (John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 6:23). Moreover, we learn that the Father is far superior to Jesus in every way and that like us, Jesus is totally dependent on the Father for everything, even his very life (Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 5:19-20; 6:37, 57;14:25; 2 Cor. 13:4). For too long we have been dependent on others to study the Bible for us. It is time we begin to study the Bible for ourselves. Joy Penrose-Davis 2012 Website: www.joypenrosedavis.com Facebook: Joy Penrose Davis, Author