1

JESUS IS GOD!! If This Doesn’t ConvinceYou Probably Nothing Will!!

Dear Sister Joy Penrose-Davis,

As a fellow Christian, I watched with a broken heart your disturbing disclaimer (on Jamaican

national television), that “Jesus is not God” during TVJ’s recent 2011 airing of “Religious

Hardtalk”. I actually taped the two-part interview you had with Ian Boyne (the program host)

and has watched it several times for careful analysis and contemplation. Subsequent to that I

read your corresponding 2011 book (as a free gift from you) with the same title of your

disclaimer, and carefully analyzed the detailed arguments of your full thesis. And so I do have a

fair enough grasp of the core substance of your teachings, to be able to present this response.

WHAT WE BELIEVE WILL EITHER SAVE OR DAMN US!!

First let me say that I do protect your right to have freedom of conscience, and you do have the

right to think as you do without being ‘robbed’ of your God-given right to believe whatever you

wish. However, I am of the Biblically endorsed view that not all beliefs are safe, or ultimately

salvific, e.g. not all Christian beliefs leads to salvation. In fact the Biblical truth is that certain

beliefs will lead to either being ultimately damned, or to being ultimately established in the

Christian faith, as is plainly said in 2 Thess. 2: 9-17. This passage (along with Prov. 16:25, 27)

should be read humbly, and contemplated over and over with trembling and much prayer,

since the nature of what we do believe, and not just what we declare on the surface, is

ultimately tied to either our salvation or damnation, and since it indicates whether or not we

either have God in our lives in the first place, or are insidiously inspired by another spirit. Jesus

plainly said that “This is life eternal that they might know thee [i.e. the Father] the only true

God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent”. John 17:3. That means that not only must we

know but also prove that we know the truth about BOTH the Father and the Son. This is

intimately related to us relationally knowing BOTH of them by way of intimate fellowship

through their Holy Spirit dwelling within (i.e. our minds). The devils themselves believe and

tremble that there is indeed one God, and yet they are lost beings because they turned the

truth of God into a lie, and have also been engaged in leading others astray (both at the level of

angels originally, and now working among men). In addition, they are no longer in God’s

fellowship precisely because of this.

2

The Bible also makes it plain that every man seems right (to himself and maybe others) until

another comes and examines him (Proverbs 18:17, but, MOST IMPORTANTLY, it makes the

following absolutely plain, which should be an instructive as well as a solemn warning to both

of us Sister Penrose-Davis, even as we begin this series of discussions on this awesome topic

you have sought to voluntarily bring into the public domain. The Bible makes it plain that:

1John 2:18-28 “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us….No lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.”

Now, it certainly would be simplistic to think that to be considered as “outside of Christ” or

worse, an “anti-Christ”, is just in denying that he is the Christ (as is done by the unconverted

Jews and many others), but the scope of the danger lies in not ascribing to Jesus anything that

is Biblically ascribed to Him in relation to the Father, and even to do so as one who claims and

appears to be a follower of Christ!! To deny Jesus anything ascribed to Him by the Father, or

as taught by either the Old Testament revelations, or by Jesus Himself and the apostles from

the very beginning of Christianity, is to effectively deny the Father, and then be exposed to

being lost by not abiding in the truth about both of them in relation to each other!!

If the Bible tells us to “prove all things”, and to “hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21)

then we should be constantly re-examining what we believe to see if we are in the TRUE faith,

and indeed are in Christ. Let’s now embark on the journey of applying the ‘litmus paper’ or ‘acid

test’ to your thesis, as presented in your book and on TVJ’s “Religious Hardtalk” (in order to

promote your book no doubt), to see if we should accept your findings, or consign it to the

scrap heap of human thought about the things of God. See and contemplate Job 11:7-9.

Remember too, as we set about examining your teachings, that a lie or error is not simply in

telling or teaching an outright unadulterated untruth or error, but the most insidious lies and

3

errors are the ones that mix truth with error, and which lead others astray with greater

effectiveness because of their appearance of being the truth in the first place.

THE TRUTHS IN YOUR THESIS (AND BOOK)

I find the following truths very clearly taught by you, and I applaud you for that:

1. That the Father is the one true God

2. That Jesus is not the person of the Father, the one true God

3. That Jesus is the Son of the Father

4. That Jesus pre-existed as God’s Son and “Word” before coming to earth as the Messiah

5. That Jesus was fully a man with all the limitations other humans have, therefore he

could literally die as a mortal man, he had all the weaknesses and mortal incapacities of

a man, and thus needed, and forever depended upon his Father aiding him to

accomplish miracles, to obey his will, and to carry out his assignment as the Messiah.

Thus his humanity, and he striving against sin, was not a sham because in his human

nature he certainly could sin just as the first Adam could.

6. That Jesus is always in subjection to His Father as Head, even before His incarnation,

and after His incarnation, even today and forevermore. That Jesus today and

forevermore, since His incarnation, sees and acknowledges the Father as His God, and

as our God.

7. That he was MADE at His incarnation in all things to be like us his brethren, as Heb. 2:17

indicate clearly.

THE FAILURES AND DANGERS OF YOUR THESIS (AND BOOK) HIGHLIGHTED

It is said that the word “but” indicates that whatever comes after that is of prime importance,

because it either amplifies the real meaning of the foregoing, or it defeats or make of none

effect what went before. That is precisely what I am saying here, by applying a big “BUT” to the

blatant and shocking errors your thesis highlights in the rest of your teachings; teachings which

make of none effect, or totally obliterate the real truth about Jesus, about the Father and His

TRUE relationship with the Son, about the very nature of the universe, about the very “image”

of God in man, and about even your very own nature as a woman. Your teachings boil down,in

my humble view, to nothing more than gilded Arianism, parading in pretended garments of

4

light. Let me now itemize the woeful failings of your thesis; the ones that made me so very sad,

even as I watched your interview on TVJ’s “Religious Hardtalk” (and subsequently read your

supporting book). You shockingly and erroneously teach:

1. That Jesus was not God in nature, not divine, or HAS NO DIVINITY WHATOSEVER,

whether before or after his earthy sojourn

2. That Jesus was “CREATED” by the Father as the first of his creation at the beginning, and

thus why he is called the “first born of all creation”, or “the beginning of the creation of

God”

3. That Jesus being called God’s “only begotten Son” means he is a creature, the first

creature of God

4. That Jesus failed all so-called “equality tests” with the Father, and hence could not be

God in nature, either before becoming man or after his ascension

5. That Jesus could not be said, IN NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, to have had two natures as a

man, simply because, by your application of “LOGIC” (of all things!!), it is an impossible

reality, and because of the so-called ‘evidence’ of Jesus operating as a full human on

earth

I put it to you Sister Penrose-Davis, that it is in these errors that the real ‘spirit of anti-Christ’ is

evidenced in your work, it is precisely here that the insidious errors of the arch enemy of Christ

(the Devil himself) find root in your thoughts, and it is precisely here that the danger of you

falling out of fellowship with the Father is seen (1 John 2:23, 24). I therefore will humbly labor,

by way of this letter, and in the ones to come (I hope, if you will allow) to show you the danger

and warn you why you need to rethink.

THE ERRORS OF YOUR THESIS (AND BOOK) EXPLAINED

Errors # 1-3:

By insisting that Jesus is not God in nature (I did not say in person), and is of a specie inferior in

nature to the Father (no matter how highly you seem to exalt him, a matter of futile words

really), then you have not only proved your lack of insight, your lack of proper theology, your

lack of proper/sufficient research and proper exegesis, but you have in effect denied not just

your very own nature as a woman, but more importantly, have denied the TRUE nature of

Jesus as well…which is where the real danger of losing out on “eternal life” is concerned,

because this effectively denies the Father as well. Why do I say so? Here’s why (and I pray you

5

will prayerfully listen to the quiet promptings of the Spirit, instead of the pride of your heart, as

connected to simply defending the intellectual thesis of your book):

a) Over and over the Father Himself declares that Jesus is his “ONLY BEGOTTEN Son”, or His

very special Son, His “unique” Son who is “the exact copy of his very person/being” (Heb. 1:1-3),

who has “the fullness of the Godhead” or divine nature in Him (Col. 2:9), and so is unlike

everyone else called “sons” of God. Now, your thesis, because of its failure to

sufficiently/properly research, properly define words, and properly apply exegesis, it has reduced

Jesus to being just like all other “sons” of God: a CREATURE!! If all other “sons” of God are

CREATED beings (angels included), and if humans, as sons of God, are spiritually said to be

“begotten again” by God, then in what sense could Jesus be said to be the “ONLY Begotten Son”

God? Only in the sense no other son of God is. He was (past tense) literally “BEGOTTEN” of the

very SUBSTANCE of God the Father Himself, by divine procreation or reproduction from the

PERIOD the Bible calls “from everlasting”, or from eternity itself, since time is part of creation and

was created by Jesus Himself (John 1:1-3: Col. 1:16,17). The known universe consists of time and

space (two invisible and intangible realities), as well as tangible matter making up all living and

non-living things (as proper research would have indicated), and all three were the direct creation

of Jesus Himself (Col. 1:16,17)…unless you wish to defeat John 1:2,3 or Col. 1:16,17, which I am

sure you cant.

The Greek word “monogenes” for “only begotten”, as seen in John 3:16, means first, an only child

literally born from a parent’s own substance within a specie, as well as a unique member of a

group, and it is precisely the word God uses to describe Jesus, IN TOTAL DISTINCTION FROM ALL

OTHERS CALLED “SONS” OF HIS. Both meanings apply to Jesus!! You however, Sister Penrose

Davis, denies all of what Jesus Himself said, what His apostles taught, what almost all Christian

apologists of the first three centuries proved they inherited from the apostles by way of their

preserved writings, and instead makes Jesus a CREATURE like you and me, like the angels, and like

the known created universe (those were your words on national television). Heresy I say!! JESUS

IS NOT A CREATURE, but by God’s own admission, over and over, he is his TRUE Son, and by right

of coming from His substance (like Eve came directly from Adam’s substance, as part of the

demonstration of God’s image in man at the very beginning)! Jesus therefore, like no other ‘son’

of God ever can, has rights, by NATURAL INHERITANCE, to own what God Himself owns,

including his name (as wives and literal sons do), even his angels, his temple, his church, his

earthly children, his throne of the universe, his universal kingdom, et al. see John 16:15. He even

owns, in a way totally unknown to man, the very Spirit of God by natural right. Why? This is

because he is a TRUE Son; NOT a creature.

6

A “creature” is a new thing externally manufactured that never existed in its properties before,

but a reproduction is a biological PROCREATION from a pre-existing prototype (big difference

sister Penrose-Davis), and is the means by which a parent naturally/biologically brings about a

copy of himself and his pre-existing properties. Since no other son is said to be God’s “only

begotten Son”, or is said to be “express image” or “the exact copy of his person”(Heb.

1:1-3), then Joy, it stands to irrefutable reason that Jesus was a NATURAL reproduction of His

Father before time began, i.e. “from everlasting” or from all eternity (past), and hence he is NOT

a “creation” or the external manufacturing of properties never in existence before, but is of the

divine specie before time began (and hence is “from everlasting” as well; Micah 5:2). Yes, he is

of the divine specie, and hence is himself like his Father in terms of divine specie; not in terms of

status of divine headship or leadership (a matter God demonstrated faintly in principle, in the

“image of God” in man, when he made Eve to come directly from Adam’s substance, with Adam as

the one true head of the first family and the entire human race)…but more on that principle later.

And this principle is what confirms that Jesus is God in nature, yes, God in highest nature, just like

Eve was Man in highest nature, because she came DIRECTLY from Adam’s substance. And yet

Jesus is not the person called God, the Father, despite inheriting his name and nature as TRUE

son’s naturally do of their literal fathers, just like Eve was not the person called Adam, but was

called Adam in name (Gen. 5:1, 2), and just like you, Joy Penrose-Davis, and your children, if any,

naturally/rightfully acquired the name of your husband, “Mr. Davis”. Why? This is because you

both are of the same human species, and are one as a literal family. I wonder if you see yourself

as inferior to your husband as head, or see yourself unlike him in specie. But more on that later!

b) Any teaching which teaches that Jesus, despite being God’s “only begotten Son”, is God not in

nature, is not divine, and has no divinity whatsoever, is anti-Christ in spirit because it denies the

Father being a real Father in the TRUE sense, and denies that Jesus is a real Son in the true

sense!! I can excuse, as weak argumentation, someone saying that Jesus being God’s “only

begotten Son” is an expression which means that Jesus is “unique” as God’s divine Son, but was

not literally “begotten” or “derived” at the beginning since that would mean he is not eternal.

But I cannot excuse someone saying that Jesus being God’s only begotten Son means he is a

creature and is not divine. That is heresy, the spirit of anti-Christ, and by it the very teaching of

God’s image in man is being obliterated.

No wonder Romans 1:19, 20 indicate clearly that the very eternal Godhead or “divine nature” of

God Himself, as it existed even from eternity, is revealed in humans themselves, and can be

understood by the things that were made. Primarily God’s nature was “imaged” in Man, and

hence we certainly are “without excuse” if we fail to look there to understand (if even in limited

7

terms). But before I go there and demonstrate the utter futility of your thesis, in its failure to

apply this ‘God-imaged-in-Man principle’, let me hasten to address your misuse of some

expressions used in the Bible.

JESUS AS “FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION”

You, like the Arian heresy of the fourth century, appealed to Jesus being called the “firstborn of all

creature” and “the beginning of the creation of God”, and sadly then concluded that this means

Jesus is a creature, and is not God by nature. But Joy, if you had taken a little more time to

patiently and objectively research, you, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, would not have found

yourselves in this sad situation. Scholarly exegesis makes it plain that words have varieties of

meaning, and not only the surface meaning should be grabbed and run with, and a text taken out

of context is a woeful pretext. Interestingly, my research shows me that the Jews referred to the

Father, or Jehovah Himself, as “the firstborn of/over the world or all the creation” (Hebrew,

“becoro shel olam”), as the Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible indicates:

“The Jews term Jehovah עולם של בכורו becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all

the creation, to signify his having created or produced all things”

-Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible

Now it is absolutely true, that Jews, who are the best expositors of their own language, should be

trusted to at least know that this expression can be applied to God, or to divinity, and yet it does

not mean he is a creature. And we find this clearly applying also to Jesus as the divine Son of God,

without it applying to him being a creature, or the first thing created. Because the expressions

“firstborn” or “first begotten”, as well as the broader expression “firstborn of all creation” have

the added meaning of ‘pre-eminence over’, then we can see why they can be applied to Jesus in

Col. 1:15-19. Paul, a Jew, rightly understood that it means simply that Jesus has pre-eminence

over all things BECAUSE he himself created all things. That’s why Paul said in verse 16 of Col. 1

“FOR BY HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED”. The word “for”, in that context, clearly means “here’s

the reason why”. Paul, as a Jew, knew very well that the word “firstborn” also has meaning of pre-

eminence when even things being created, or things being born are not the subject at hand. And

so we find the Bible calling a disease like leprosy “the firstborn of death” (Job 18:13), or describing

Jesus coming from the grave as “the first begotten” of those from the dead (Rev. 1:5). Why?

Leprosy was the prime, pre-eminent, or leading disease in those days; so too was Jesus the prime,

leading, or pre-eminent person to have ever been in the grave. Leprosy was not the first ever

disease to exist in time, neither was Jesus the first in time to ever be resurrected from the dead,

and so the emphasis shows it means, in context, PRE-EMINENCE OVER; not first in time. And even

if Jesus, by way of his incarnation, became part of his creation, it was thousands of years after he

himself created all things, and it was only after the MIRACULOUS incarnation process. In addition,

8

it was only after he was already “MADE” (Heb. 2:17) to became part of the human species of

creation, ‘incarnation-ally’, that Paul applied the expression to Jesus, and so it still means his PRE-

EMINENCE OVER ALL CREATION, just like he is pre-eminent over the Church already in existence

before he came (Acts 7:38), and pre-eminent over those who are from the dead, etc. Likewise,

despite becoming himself a Jew long after Jews were in existence, he was still called “the firstborn

among many *Jewish+ brethren” (Rom. 8:29), because he has pre-eminence over all Jews; he is not

the first Jew in time.

Correspondingly, the term “the beginning of the creation of God” can mean he is the

ORIGINATOR, SOURCE, or BEGINNER of the creation of God, as well as being the PRE-EMINENT

One over the creation of God, since the expression “beginning” comes from the Greek word

“arche”, and, just like the words architect and archenemy show, its use extends to these meanings

too; not just to first in time. This means therefore that Jesus is the co-Creator!

JESUS IS CO-CREATOR, AND HERE’S WHY

To deny that Jesus is co-Creator (as you have done in your book; see Appendix at end), or deny

that he is equally the Originator or Beginner of the creation with the Father, simply because the

Father is depicted as the ‘first cause’ operating through the Son, would be similar to saying only

the father in a human family is the reproducer and is the sole parent (remember Gen. 1:26).

Typically the “seed” or the descendant is depicted as coming from the father, but MUST be

implanted in the woman, the key active agent/medium of reproduction. This is how you have

denied your own nature and intrinsic God-given role in the family sister Penrose-Davis, asit

“images” the Godhead family. How sad. You insist that only the Father is Creator, and if the

“image” in man is to correspond to the original principle, then only the father of a family should

be considered the re-producer! But notice first, that Adam himself established that it was not to

be so; despite he is depicted as the father and head of the human race. In Gen. 3:20 Adam

recognizes Eve as the “mother of all living” and hence established her equal place with him as the

co-reproducer and co-parent of the entire human race. That’s precisely why, when Jesus was to

be born a human, God made him to come without a human father, and yet still he was

GENUINELY called the “son of Man”, as the “son of Mary” (Mark 6:3). Jesus was the only human

biblically named after his human mother, because of his unique human birth!! This establishes,

beyond the shadow of a doubt, the woman’s place of co-equality with males, in nature, as co-

reproducer and co-parent of human families; not in the role or status of headship. No wonder

God Himself, from the very fall of man, said that redemption would be secured through the

“seed” of a woman, of all things (Gen. 3:15), a female, who is as much Man as the any male

figure is. Do you think this was an accident or afterthought? Certainly not, because God sees the

end from the beginning, and knew from the beginning what was needed to establish the truth

9

about his own Son’s co-equal nature with him. Jesus was to be likewise depicted, through object

lessons in the earthly family, as equally the source of creation (Col. 1;16,17) and as equally pre-

eminent over all creation, just as the Father himself is, despite the Father is recognized as the

head, the first cause of creation, but operating through Jesus as the key active agent/medium of

creation. This was the image of God in man, which, for your benefit, I will look at in detail

hereafter. You have missed so much parallelism here Sister Davis. You really should have applied

your acquired skills in theological research in a more objective and prudent way.

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN INTRODUCED

If you had just simply looked at the nature of man you would have seen the following truths Joy.

Let’s start at the very beginning. God made Man (Gen. 1:26, 27) *"in his image" (i.e. patterned

after him). Interestingly it turned out that:

(i) At the individual level, Adam and all individual humans thereafter, for that matter, was/is a

*threefold being (i.e. body, soul, and spirit united) which cannot be separated from his constituent

parts (see 1 Thess. 5:23).

(ii) At the generic or species level, a family of Man is considered as still one in essence (Gen.2:24),

despite being also made up of a threefold union of (a) a father, as sole head (b) a mother, as a

help-meet, and co-producer, and (c) the later arriving offspring resulting from their unity (thus

*completing the family); with all bearing the same family name from the father, and all still

forming part of whom is called Man (Gen. 5:2). The two (Adam and Eve), when combined at the

deepest human level, produced a third human person like themselves, Cain, who was still called

and was fully a part of “Man” (humanity, or the one specie), or the family of Adam. Notice that the

union at the deepest human/physical level results in a personal entity that is deemed the “seed”

of the man (or comes from the man, the head), and yet, after channeled through the woman,

equally belongs to both parents, and reflects and represents the features of both anywhere that

personal entity goes.

It becomes MOST interesting that in the same way a single/individual human, with the image of

God, is a threefold union, likewise a complete family of humans, with the image of God, is a

threefold union of father, mother, and offspring, all in a closely knit a group, with all sharing the

same family name of the father. There exist the very same but original principle of a threefold

union of the Father, and Son and their Holy Spirit, though they are not one personal being

literally (as is erroneously taught by many in Christendom). They are only one in metaphorical

imagery, with the Father as Head, or the one true God, just like the one true Christ and His

Church; which should be depicted metaphorically with only one head; not three! Also the Father

and Son united, as separate beings, at the deepest level, results in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit

10

is depicted, admittedly, as proceeding from the Father, the head, but also as being channeled

through Christ, and yet is shared and equally possessed by both (Rom. 8: 9-11, 27), and is depicted

as equally representing both all over the universe wherever the Spirit goes or is sent; with all three

sharing the name of the Father (Matt. 28:19) the Head of that divine group. No wonder the Bible

declared “And God said let us make man in our own image”. The general parallels and matching

principles (not necessarily the exact processes) are eye opening, and I will highlight these shortly.

THE JEWISH VIEW OF FAMILY ONENESS Now, as it concerns the oneness of Man, or a human family, spoken of collectively by focusing on

the head figure, let me say this. Lest you think I am taking liberty with ancient Hebrew of the Bible, let me demonstrate conclusively that the Jews did see both a family as well as all humanity as if only one person or being (the head of the family, the male) was involved. In popular but extra-biblical Jewish literature called the Wisdom of Solomon, despite it is not inspired like the Bible, yet the following quote from it is quite eye opening about how Jews thought about Man, (as well as about personified Wisdom, but I will elaborate on Wisdom later). Emphases and inserts in brackets are mine: Wisdom of Solomon 10:1-7 “She [wisdom] preserved the first formed father of the world [i.e. Adam], that was created alone [despite united as one with his wife], and [wisdom] brought him out of his fall [i.e. assured him/them of future redemption after his/their sin in Eden], And [wisdom] gave him [i.e. Adam, Eve and all men] power to rule all things. …. [Later when] the earth being drowned with the flood, wisdom again preserved it, and directed the course of the righteous [i.e. Noah and family] in a piece of wood of small value. When the ungodly perished [in Sodom], she [wisdom] delivered the righteous man [i.e. Lot and his family], who fled from the fire which fell down upon the five cities [Sodom and neighboring ones]. Of whose wickedness even to this day the waste land that smoketh is a testimony, and plants bearing fruit that never come to ripeness: and a standing pillar of salt is a monument of an unbelieving soul.”

This collective or group language, as centered in/on the male or head figure (with the “he” or “him” denoting all persons involved, and both genders), is seen in the inspired Bible too, and so confirms the Jewish way of speaking. Here are just a few examples:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man [i.e. Adam and Eve] is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he [Adam and Eve] put forth his hand [whether Adam or Eve], and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him [Adam and Eve] forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he [both Adam and Eve] was taken. Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man [both Adam and Eve]; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

11

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man [i.e. all humanity], for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Job 7:1 Is there not an appointed time to man [all humanity] upon earth? are not his days also like the days of an hireling? Job 7:17 What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him? Job 7:18 And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment?

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN EXPLAINED

Now that this often missed (or much ignored) Biblical principle, of the generic oneness of Man, demonstrating God’s image, is now well established, let’s apply and reason further Sister Penrose-Davis. When God made Man “in his own image” how many men (male gender) were first created? Only one! Adam. In a word there was one true Adam, the first male, the head (father) of the entire human race in the beginning. However, you will realize very quickly that Eve (the female), who came directly from his substance, was also recognized as constituting “Adam”, or “Man”, or “mankind”, or “humanity” (see Gen. 5:1, 2. To be Man in the highest/truest sense did not require Eve to be the person of Adam, her husband and head, but by her being simply human. Thus Adam, as Man, must of necessity, and in the first instance, include the oneness with his wife who bears both his name and equal nature, despite difference of function and status. And this was the direct parallel/result of Man being made “in the image of God”, simply because God, after saying “let us make man in our own image”, then proceeded to make Man in God’s image. *If divinity or the Godhead was one person alone, then the image of God in man would be borne by only one person alone. Only the male would be humanity; not all persons. But because the image of God in Man applied to all persons, and humanity in Man is a shared reality between all persons of Man, then correspondingly God-hood is a shared reality between the persons of divinity.

How many persons of “man” first existed after creation on earth was totally completed? A plurality!! How many “humanities” has ever existed? Only one! No other human species has existed; even today (with billions of persons) it remains so. Was humanity only the male? No? Was Eve called “Adam” or “Man” (human) in the highest sense? Yes! Why? Because she was not an inferior specie member of Man. Was she a man (male gender)? Clearly No! Why? Because she was not the person of Adam (the male)! Was the woman led by Adam! Clearly yes! Did this diminish her humanity? No! Was she inferior to Adam (the male)? No! Why? Because they were both of “one” (the same) substance, and that’s why God did not make Eve from a separate lump of clay, but to forever keep them “one flesh” (as if one person), despite they would be separate persons, he took the woman directly from the substance of the male (the multiplication process was 1x1= 1)! If God had made the woman independently from another lump of clay the equation would be 1+1 = 2, and would have defeated the “imaging” of the Godhead which is always one God who, before time began, begat a Son from His own substance (still 1x1=1).

12

The same rule, in general principle (as described in the foregoing) is true when applied to divinity! Jesus is clearly not the person of the Father, but is TRULY “God in the highest sense”, since TO BE GOD IN THE HIGHEST SENSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT JESUS BE THE FATHER IN PERSON. This is quite similar to saying, that any female is truly Man (human) in the highest sense, despite not being the person of a male (gender). Eve was not another man/male (or another head figure), as this would create two heads of the first family, yet still she was fully and truly Man or human or another person of humanity, and fully one with the one true Adam. Likewise the same principle applies to the Godhead. Jesus is also not another “one true God” in status (or another Head figure of divinity), but he’s likewise fully and truly divine, or truly “God” [capitalized] in nature, and fully one with the one true God the Father (the only divine Head figure in the universe), because as 1 Cor. 8:6 clearly says “there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ” (yet Jesus, as another person of divinity, is also rightfully called “my Lord and my God” because he is equally my Creator- John 20:28, 29); not just “God” in nature. So many like to leave out the last part of 1 Cor. 8:6, and ignore the true import of John 20:28, 29 or Heb. 1:8, 10!! I will not!! The divine unity is inescapable. Paul, (just like Jesus in John 17:3) when speaking of divinity and the one true God, the Father, IMMEDIATELY introduced Jesus along with Him to show the inescapable family unity, just as Eve was introduced IMMEDIATELY along with Adam when God made Man in his image. Gen. 1:26, 27. Why? The unity of persons demonstrated in “the image of God” in humanity was as inescapable as the unity of persons in the original blueprint of divinity!! Now let’s continue to explore this awesome truth. Eve was not a man (in gender), however (like all wives thereafter) she also had family rights to

the name “Adam” (Gen. 5:2), and was by specie also called “Man”. “Man” (the specie) was

Adam primarily, but, along with Eve, was one specie, one existence, one in being; NOT that

both are “a single personal being” or one person, but are one related “existence”- e.g. Acts

17:28. Please see the dictionary for the various uses of the word “being”. That should clear up

many misconceptions as to its usage.

Concluding then, I ask again Sister Penrose-Davis, was it simply Adam’s leadership in the first

family, or he being the first human creation, or being the one true Adam (“the Man of the house”)

at the beginning, and being the only biologically un-begotten human male, that sets him apart as

Man in the truest sense? Was it only Adam, the male, that bore or had rights to the family name

“Adam” (see Gen. 5:1, 2), or was he the only one to be considered Man/human in the highest or

truest sense of the word, simply because he (or his substance) was the source of Eve, the female,

or because he was the “head” (‘lord’) of his wife? Certainly not!! Yet, those who focus on

headship, leadership, and ultimate group authority as the measure of true God-hood would

certainly like to think so about the Father in the divinity sense, and would want to create

‘distances’ between the members of the divine specie in terms of their TRUE nature, and the

highest honor they deserve.

13

Let’s now look at your so-called “equality test” between Jesus and the Father that you introduced

on national TV, and which is further expounded in your book.

Errors # 4-5:

I watched your efforts on national television (TVJ) to admirably protect the supreme place of

the Father by simultaneously doing great dishonor to our Lord Jesus Christ. It simply was

astounding. You were most emphatic when you sought to apply your so-called “equality test”

between Jesus and the Father; one which was so flawed, so contradictory, one so not thought

out, that I wonder if you realized how the angels in heaven must have covered their faces in

horror, and how you must have brought pain to the heart of God the Father Himself by so

doing. Let me now demonstrate why I say so.

First let me point out that any definition of “God” is erroneous if it only focuses on the Father,

just like any definition of “Man” is erroneous if it focuses only on the male, or father or head

figure. What is true is that like Adam, the one true Man (the prototype of humanity) at the

beginning, the Father is the one true God, the prototype of divinity, from all eternity.

But if Eve did not match up to all the leadership/status/role/ gender features of Adam, did that

mean she was not human? You already know, or by now SHOULD know the answer I am sure.

So let’s compare Jesus with the Father and see why your “equality test” is flawed sister

Penrose-Davis.

FLAWED “EQUALITY TEST” APPLICATION

If as you already know, Jesus gave up his supernatural powers and abilities as a man, then how

can you compare Jesus in his human capacities (e.g. his unawareness of some things, his

tiredness, his hunger, his need for sleep, etc.) and say he does not measure up to the Father in

divinity then? I myself know it is a false teaching of some in Christendom to say that Jesus

walking on water, he raising the dead, he reading minds, he disappearing among a crowd, he

instantaneously healing the sick, and all the other miracles displayed were exhibitions of his

inherent divine power as a man. No!! As our human Model, the one true ‘second Adam’, he

accomplished all those through the power from the Spirit which anointed Him, and hence why

he prayed for that power coming from the Spirit as man. And in fact I know too that he did

what any anointed Christian can do by the Holy Spirit’s power, once it is God’s will…with some

exceptions!!

14

Notice, for instance, that Jesus had rights to promise and finally give “give eternal life” (John

10:27-36), and to also directly forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12), which no other human can do (even

when anointed by the Spirit)! Only one who is God in nature can rightfully do this, and this

has a certain significance which I will explain later. In addition, the way you apply the “equality

test” to mean that Jesus must have all the attributes and features of his Father or else he is not

God in nature is woefully shortsighted, because if you, a woman, don’t have all the attributes of

a male human, or that of your husband, as head, does that mean you are not human in nature

yourself? Differing roles and functions, and even differing features in a group specie, does not

mean exclusion from the group or inequality in nature sister Penrose-Davis. The Church has

many united human members of like nature, and has differing roles of the members, yet all

are human members of the human Christ (1 Cor. 12:12)! And there are not “many Christs”,

but one true Christ, the head in status. So too the Godhead has divine members of like divine

nature, with diferring roles, and does not “many Gods” make, since there is still one true God,

the Father, the Head of Christ. No wonder Jesus and the Father are “one” just as the Church

is, but as as separate beings. This is how we are expected to avoid seeing polytheism in the

Godhead.

Let’s now see how your so-called “equality test” fails the acid tests of logic and the Bible.

JESUS IS ETERNAL LIKE THE FATHER

You say Sister Penrose-Davis that only the Father is eternal. But what definition do you use?

Only one definition exists in the Bible itself of what it means that God is eternal. “From

everlasting to everlasting” God exists (Ps. 90:2). When does “from everlasting” begin? It was

from the infinite ages that the Father Himself has always existed in the past. The expression

“from everlasting” means from all eternity past, and occurs only nine times in the entire King

James Bible of 66 books, and occurs only in the Old Testament. Interestingly it is only applied to

either the Father or the Son, .e.g. Micah 5:2 and Proverbs 8:22-24. Even when Jesus is said to

have been metaphorically “set up” or “brought forth” or “possessed” as God’s Wisdom in

imagery (Proverbs 8: 22-30) it was said to be “from everlasting”, that is, from all eternity past

he was ALREADY “set up”, ALREADY “brought forth”, or ALREADY “possessed”, and thus like

God’s literal reason, or wisdom it has no beginning point. Likewise Jesus’ “goings forth”, or he

existing as the Father’s “descendant” (Hebrew, Motsaah), was “from everlasting” (or before

all time began), as Micah 5:2 makes plain, and as Heb. 7:3 further makes plain that he has

“no beginning of days”. Literally, God’s wisdom, which must be always related to Him, could

not have had a beginning, or there could NOT be a point when God created wisdom, since

LOGICALLY wisdom must naturally exist from everlasting along with God Himself, and as

15

being always naturally related to Him; not created after Him. No wonder the imagery aptly

applies to Christ as always naturally related to (and yet naturally born from) the being of God

Himself, but “from everlasting” or before all time began; not during what we call time. That’s

precisely why Jesus is irrefutably eternal!!

DEPICTION OF THE PRE-EXISTENT AND ETERNAL JESUS

And by the way, before moving on, let me add that the unconverted Jews, and the later

enlightened Christians, had interesting viewpoints regarding who the personified Wisdom in

Old Testament imagery was all along.

A comparison of Jewish literature and the inspired Bible shows clearly that that:

“In the Apocrypha [i.e. popular but extra-biblical Jewish literature], the most advanced step is

taken regarding Wisdom... Wisdom is thought of as a heavenly being…”

-Quoted from *INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA

*PERSONIFIED WISDOM IN IMAGERY, FOR THE ANCIENT JEWS, WAS AT TIMES EITHER EQUATED WITH, AND OR MADE ONE WITH GOD HIMSELF, AND AT OTHER TIMES MADE DISTINCT FROM HIM. BUT THE SAME WISDOM WAS LATER SEEN AS THE DISTINCTLY PERSONAL AND PRE-EXISTENT JESUS BY CHRISTIANS, DESPITE WISDOM WAS LINGUISTICALLY DEPICTED IN THE FEMININE GENDER IN OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW (SIMPLY AS LANGUAGE

RULES OF COURSE). Proofs? COMPARE THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY: Wisdom of Solomon 10:15-20 [Wisdom] She delivered the righteous people and blameless seed [Israel] from the nation [of Egypt] that oppressed them. She entered into the soul of the servant of the Lord [Moses], and withstood [overcame] dreadful kings in wonders and signs [e.g. the Egyptian Pharaoh]; [wisdom] Rendered to the righteous [Israel] a reward of their labors, guided them in a marvelous way, and was unto them for a cover by day [pillar of cloud], and a light of stars [pillar of fire] in the night season; [wisdom] Brought them through the Red sea, and led them through much water: But she [wisdom] drowned their enemies, and cast them up out of the bottom of the deep. Therefore the righteous [all Israel] spoiled [defeated] the ungodly [Canaanites], and praised thy holy name, O Lord, and magnified [i.e. praised] with one accord thine hand [i.e. thy Wisdom or the arm of the Lord], that fought for them. NOW NOTICE WHOM THE BIBLE IDENTIFIES AS THIS PERSONIFIED WISDOM: 1Corintians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ [is] the power

of God, and the wisdom of God. 1Corinthians 10:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all

our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

16

And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Proverbs 8:1, 22-25 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? The LORD possessed me [wisdom or Jesus] in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I [wisdom or Jesus] was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I [wisdom or Jesus] was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth…

Hebrews 1:2, 3 [God] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son [Jesus], whom he

hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds [Jesus] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

COMPARE CAREFULLY AGAIN: Wisdom of Solomon 7:26-28 For she [wisdom] is the brightness of the everlasting light [i.e. God Himself], the unspotted mirror of the power of God [i.e. the exact copy/reflection of God’s omnipotence], and the image of his goodness. And [wisdom] being but one [i.e. distinct from God], she can do all things: and remaining in herself [i.e. distinct from God], she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with [i.e. is friends with] wisdom. Wisdom of Solomon 8:3-4 …she [wisdom] is conversant with God [i.e. knoweth him fully], she magnifieth her nobility [i.e. is closest to God in royalty]: yea, the Lord of all things himself loved her. For she is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God, and a lover of his works. Wisdom of Solomon 7:22 For wisdom, which is the worker [creator] of all things, taught me… in her is an intelligent spirit holy [i.e. the holy spirit], one only [i.e. one or distinct holy spirit], [yet] manifold [i.e. a sevenfold spirit in operation]… Wisdom of Solomon 9:10-11 O send her [wisdom] out of thy holy heavens, and from the throne of thy glory, that being present she may labour with me, that I may know what is pleasing unto thee. For she knoweth and understandeth all things, and she shall lead me soberly in my doings, and preserve me in her power. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word [the Logos, Wisdom], and the Word [the Logos,

Wisdom] was with God, and the Word was God [i.e. he was all God Himself was in nature, just like Eve was the same in relation to Adam].

John 1:2 The same [Logos, Wisdom] was in the beginning with God.

17

John 1:3 All things were made by him [the Logos, Wisdom]; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. John 1:14 …the Word [Logos, Wisdom] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld

his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

Isaiah 53:1-2 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is [Jesus] the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

*NOTICE THE STRIKING COMPARISON IN THOUGHT BEWTEEN ANCIENT JEWISH LITERATURE AND THE BIBLE’S

DEPICTION OF PERSONIFIED WISDOM AND JESUS HIMSELF, DESPITE MOST UNCONVERTED JEWS NEVER HAD A

CLUE WHOM THE IMAGERY OF WISDOM WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REFERRING TO ALL ALONG. NO WONDER JOHN,

A JEW, MADE A MOST STARTLING ADMISSION IN JOHN 1:10, 11. READ IT AGAIN AND CONTEMPLATE.

Now back to my main point, about Jesus depicted as personified Wisdom existing “from

everlasting”; not originating within time!! In the New Testament Jesus is subsequently

presented as “the eternal life” or “Word” (the SAME ancient “Wisdom”) that was “with” the

Father in the earliest beginning, but already separate “from everlasting”. 1 John 1:1-3. Since it

was Jesus Himself who created time (i.e. sun, moon and stars as time markers), then Jesus

existed before all time began, and he created all time, and so must be eternal like the Father,

and likewise lives outside of time or inhabits eternity. Jesus therefore could never be said to

“fail” the test of existing from all eternity in the past.

And of course Jesus will be living for all eternity in the future. When Jesus died as a man, he

did really die literally, but he himself already made it plain that when you are connected with

the Father, because of the absolute assurance of your resurrection, it will be as if you never

died at all (John 11:25, 26), and you will not, as it were, even “see death”, even when you die

literally as a man before being resurrected to everlasting life. Why? Earthly sons of God are

depicted as already “passed from death into immortal life” (John 5:24, 25), since God speaks

‘proleptically’ of things promised as if they already are. That takes care of Jesus’ short

humanly sojourn in the grave, i.e. if you would use that to mean he is not continuously

eternal, or argue that he could not be pictured as being both immortal and as a mortal man at

the same time. “Spiritual things are indeed spiritually discerned” sister Penrose-Davis.

And remember, Jesus’ connection with the Father (i.e. guaranteeing an assurance of never

really dying ultimately, despite dying literally as a man), is not one by way of mere adoption or

18

creation, but one in which he naturally owns this rightful connection with His Father as his TRUE

Son. No wonder Jesus is called “the Everlasting Father” or “the Father of eternity”. Is. 9:6!! Not

that he is the person of His Father, but in the context of being the second Adam, or the

“Father” or Head of the new/recreated race of human “children” (yes, “children”) that God

gives him (Heb. 2:10-14), he is supposed to be seen as “everlasting” or eternal to us, just as His

own Father is. Both the Father of Jesus and the Spirit are said to be eternal (Heb. 9:14), and yet

even when Jesus succumbed to human mortality and literally died as a man, he was still to be

called, even then in humanity, the Father of eternity, or the everlasting Father (Is. 9:6). In fact

if both the Father and Son are called “the first and the last” (e.g. Jesus in Rev. 2:8), then this is

only possible if they have ‘tied’ in the area of existence (as athletes in a ‘tied’ first place race

would understand). And even though Jesus literally died, yet John still called him “the first

and last”, and in the very same verse he admitted he died. Simply amazing!! It is indeed futile

to kick against the pricks when these awesome mysteries/revelations are made plain sister

Penrose-Davis.

In addition, as the divine Son of God, Jesus’ CONTINUED existence could only be patterned by

the human priest called Melchisedec (Heb. 7:1-3), who, by way of having no record of his

parentage, and no official birth certificate or death certificate (as it were) to show when he

respectively began and when he came to an end, his life simply typifies Jesus’ continuous

existence. Obviously Melchizedec, if he was a man, would have had parents, just like Jesus, but

the point being made in Hebrews 1:1- 3, was that despite that reality Jesus is still considered as

eternal. He just exists continuously. And that’s why in the very beginning of the universe itself

he already “was”, as existing “from everlasting” or eternity. John 1:1, 2 compared with

Proverbs 8:22-24. Who indeed can, by searching find out God? Job 11:7-9.

JESUS IS OMNIPOTENT LIKE THE FATHER

You then proceeded to say (on television and in your book) that only the Father is omnipotent,

and implied that Jesus “failed” this test of divinity? Oh dear. By what Biblical definition do you

define omnipotence? If it means by being able to do all things (Phill. 4:13), to create all things

(Col. 1:16, 17), or uphold the universe (Heb. 1:2, 3), for instance, then I wonder who actually

did/does that work. If Jesus, by natural inheritance (Heb. 1:1-3; Col. 2:9), had all the attributes

of fullness of the divine nature or Godhead (Col. 2:9), or of His Father, then it is natural he

would have inherited omnipotence. That’s how personified wisdom, representing Jesus

(1 Cor. 1:24), was depicted by his own Hebrew people… i.e. as knowing all things, creating all

things, being able to do all things. In fact, Jesus created and sustains the entire universe

(Heb. 1:2, 3), and, after the fall of man, all of the dealings of God with man in the Old

19

Testament seem to have been through the pre-existent Jesus (1 Cor.10:1-5), who exercised all

the powers of omnipotence on behalf of his Father. Jesus did empty himself of all external

glories and divine powers while on earth, except he did not deny his prerogative or right to

promise and give eternal life, to forgive sins, and to receive worship. And, as the Jews rightly

knew, only a divine being, who is like the Father, can promise and give eternal life, can directly

forgive sins (if even in a delegated sense, as you argue), and should receive worship equal to

that of the Father (John 5:23; Heb. 1:6). This explains why Jesus on earth had some aspects of

his divine nature combined with his human nature, and so despite he gave up all powers and

external glories, but he could not deny that he existed from everlasting (see John 8:58), or

deny his inherent special nature of being divine royalty, as God’s true Son (“the Prince of

peace” on earth, as it were), and hence why he not only freely accepted highest worship, but

why he could still rightfully promise eternal life to others, and directly forgive sins. Royalties

(kings and princes, etc.) are traditionally known to be the powers that forgive crimes and

offer pardon, and this divine royal quality we see too in Jesus even while a man.

After Jesus ‘got back’ all his divine powers and the previously held glories from the Father upon

his ascension (John 17:5; Matt. 28:18), he then declared that “all power is given me” (whether

that power is deemed to be all authority or all supernatural abilities), and yet you say Mrs.

Penrose-Davis that he does not measure up to the Father in omnipotence? What does “all

power” really mean to you? And if you should reason that because he “got” those powers from

the Father then this means he is not divine or equal in nature with the Father, does it mean too

that a king on a throne does not wield the same nature of power as his father from whom he

naturally inherited/got his power? Does it mean too that because you (as a woman) inherited

your ability to reproduce children then you are not equal in nature with your mother or father

who came before you, and who genetically passed on to you the God-given ‘powers’ of

reproduction within the species? That argument would fall flat on its face rather quickly, sister

Penrose-Davis.

And by the way, notice that creation was a group effort between Father and Son (Gen. 1:26,27;

Heb. 1:1-3) through the Holy Spirit being “sent” to do the creating (Ps. 104:30; Gen. 1: 1, 2), in

just the same way a father can reproduce but it is a group effort of male and female (never the

male alone), despite it is the male/head who gets the credit for begetting, despite the family

lineage is traced through the head of the family, and despite the inherited name of the child is

always that of the father. No wonder God the Father is credited with creation (Is. 44:24), and

yet he did it through and in unison with his Son (through the power of their united Spirit). I

remind you “And God said let us make man in our own image” as a patterning of the divine

nature. Believe it. Resist the truth to your own detriment!!

20

JESUS IS ALSO JEHOVAH BY NAME

This brings me now to the subject of the name of God, “YHWH”, or “Jehovah” (as popularly

pronounced), or “the Lord”. You say only the Father is Jehovah. If Jesus inherits a name that is

“above all other name” (Heb. 1:4; Phill.2:9-11), then which name do you think this is? It has

to be the Father’s own name of “Jehovah”, or “the Lord”, since no name is higher, and since

all TRUE sons literally *inherit only the name of their father. Any other name borne by a son

that is not the very name of his father or the head of the family is not an inherited name.

Interestingly, the Jews today refuse to call Jesus “the Lord”, because they themselves knew that

it is the very name of God, the Father, and they know that “the Lord” as a name in the New

Testament Greek is the translation of the literal Hebrew name for Yahweh. It comes from

“Kurios” in Greek, and “YHWH” in Hebrew, and hence explains why in Heb. 1:10, the Father

Himself calls Jesus “Lord”. It could not mean that, by addressing His Son as such, that Jesus was

the Father’s “master” or “head” in status, another meaning of “Lord” (that could never be), but

it was the Father applying His own name and description to His Son (as he directly quoted from

Psalm 102: 1, 24-27).That is precisely what Phill. 2:9-11 confirms. Likewise in Heb. 1:8 the

Father applies his own title of “O God” to his Son in the unlimited sense of he having the divine

nature; not in the limited/metaphorical (Psalm 45) sense, as it admittedly applied to a pre-

Messianic king of Israel. Why? This was simply because only Jesus, as the true Messianic king, or

the TRUE Son of God, is divine in nature just as he is. And again, this address to the Son, directly

from the Father’s own mouth, is not because the Son is the Father’s “God” (it actually is the

other way around since Jesus incarnation), but it was the Father’s way of showing why he

ordered angels to worship His Son even while he was a man on earth (Heb. 1:6). Even the

angels probably did not understand at first that as a man (lower than them in status at the

time) Jesus still was to be worshipped by them. Hence the reason for the directive from God

Himself! Amazing!! No other human will God ever order or allow angels to worship, and that

plainly shows again why Jesus had two natures in combination while on earth, because not

even his human brothers could then, or in the future, even in paradise, ever hold this natural

right of worship from angels, even after having become human “sons of God”!!

And by the way, any homage that Jesus must receive is of the same nature and to the same

degree as that of the Father, because Jesus Himself said it plainly in John 5:23. All should

honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The highest honor given to God is simply

worship, and since “as” is a potent word, and means ‘just like’ or ‘equal in nature’, then Jesus

must receive the same type of honor. And if only one who is God in nature, or only one who

bears the name “Jehovah” or “the Lord”, or only one who sits and rules as King of kings

(supreme) on the throne of the universe (etc.) that should receive this highest honor of

worship, then we see clearly why Jesus is equally worshipped like the Father . He bears his

21

Father’s very name of “the Lord” by inheritance (as all true sons do); He shares His Father’s

nature of “God”, by inheritance; he equally sits on the throne (singular!!) of the Father (Rev.

3:21;Rev. 22:1) by inheritance, and rules jointly with Him as “King of Kings” (supreme). Rev.

19:11-16! By the way, all royal sons, or princes, naturally, upon the death of the king, inherit

the same supreme power and throne of their father. Why does Jesus share it jointly? This is

simply because he and the Father will together live forever more. Hallelujah.

But of course, Jesus was forever given (as a complete gift) to the human race (John 3:16), and when he became man, the second Adam, he was forever made like unto us his brethren, and so became our Model forever of what a true Adam should be. He heads up the spiritually ‘recreated’ race (as it were), now a righteous race of human sons, for all eternity in the future, and continues to model for us, even today in heaven, the worshipping of the Father as His God; the God of His brethren, who are also his children (Heb. 2:11-17). Interestingly, the same people who forms the bride of Christ, are the same who are his brethren or brothers and sisters, and yet the same group are those who are his children and servants. Why? His two roles of being our Elder Brother, while simultaneously being our Everlasting Father (not the person of the Father, mind you) are inseparable and overlapped. JESUS RETURNS AS “THE MIGHTY GOD” OR “THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR” While he returns as the Son of Man (Matt. 24:30), he will also return as the “the great God and Savior” as seen in Titus 2:13, 14, since both verses of Titus 2:13, 14 have only Jesus as the subject of the discourse, the one “who gave himself for us”; and not two persons, as you assume Sister Davis. The Bible makes it plain that the Father judges no one, but has turned over ALL Judgment to His Son (John 5:22). And since it is Jesus’ own voice which will raise ALL the dead when Jesus appears, since it is he who brings ALL rewards and punishments (Rev. 22:12), since it is his brightness that slays ALL the wicked (2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2 Thess. 2:8), since, as the Bridegroom, he comes for his Bride to return the Church to the home of His Father (as the Jewish custom of weddings typify), and since he is already designated “the Mighty God” in Is.9:6, and “the Savior” in very many places (e.g. 1 John 4:14), then we know Jesus will be the one coming as “the Great God and Savior”. Never forget that "the mighty God" and "the great God" are very similar expressions! Interestingly, Jewish parents do not accompany bridegrooms to meet their brides. They remain at their own home and the bride is taken there to meet them, and thereafter (after the marriage supper) the bride is taken to another location to live with the groom. The model is plain, and Jesus’ second coming is plainly modeled after the custom. He first comes to meet (“in the air”) and collect or “receive” his Bride the Church (not to at that time join her/us on earth). Compare carefully 1Thess. 4:15-17 with John 14:1-3! Then he takes the saints to heaven to meet His Father at His home, at the marriage Supper of the Lamb in heaven (Rev. 19:1, 6-9), and finally he and his Bride later returns to earth (the final stop) as their eternal home, our original and eternal inheritance. See Rev. 21 and 22 (both chapters)!

22

Jesus being pictured as coming or appearing again “in his Father’s glory”, or “on the right hand of Power” (whether that is figurative language or not), it does not mean Jesus cannot be called “the great God” who comes! And if you, sister Penrose-Davis, try to say it is Jesus who is “the Savior” in Titus 2:13, but only another, the Father, who is being called “the great God”, then why do you not compare the Is. 9:6 text which PLAINLY says Jesus, even as a man, will be called “the Mighty God”? Honesty says it is quite similar (rather, it is identical in meaning) to “the Great God” expression in wording. And if you argue that it is Jesus who is the Savior in Titus 2:13, 14, and not the Father, why is it that it appears that only God is to be called “the Savior” in Is. 43:11? Using the same faulty logic against you, it would mean then that Jesus should not be called “the Savior” either, only the Father. Yet see Titus 1:4 and 1 John 4:14. Neither should the Father be called “the Lord” if only Jesus is the “one Lord”. Yet see Jude 1:4. Apparently, the word “only” is being conveniently applied in some senses but not in others by you, and this creates conflicts that should not have existed. And why is this being done? Simply because the sameness of nature, the spiritual and operational unity of the Godhead persons, along with the undeniably supreme status of the Father are either totally misunderstood, or are being denied in relation to each other. Now because Jesus remains human (despite resurrected with a glorified body) he therefore still has the Father as His “God”, while he is still being the second Adam, and still being our continued Model of a true human worshipper (Heb. 2:11, 12). That’s why today he is still the human Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), why he will receive the kingdom before he returns as “one like a son of man” (Dan. 7:13,14), why he returns as a man (Phill. 3:20, 21; Matt. 24:30), and why, when he turns over the kingdom to the Father at “the end” (1 Cor. 15:24-28), he will still be the second Adam or “Christ” handing it over, with the Father still as His God. And yet notice that Daniel 7:13, 14 shows he will still have a BOTH a“dominion” or “ruler-ship” and a “kingdom” THAT WILL NEVER END (!!), just like the wider scope of reign of the Most High in Daniel 7:27!! So will he give up a kingdom at “the end”? Certainly!! Confusing? No!! As the second Adam, his role of restoring the previously lost human kingdom on earth (and the earthly throne of David, his Jewish ancestor) demands that he models this human behavior too; of surrendering and subjecting all earthly dominion to the Father. This is all part of the plan of redemption. Period! This reality, however, does not deny his divinity, and it never will, since as divine co-ruler on the throne of the whole universe, of innumerable galaxies, solar systems, worlds, etc. (Rev. 3:21; Rev. 22:1), and not just ruling jointly on earth with the saints, it is this natural right of his to rule the whole universe that will never end. Yet he will forever still Model for his brethren, on earth, full human subjection to the Father as His “God”. NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE BEFORE JESUS BECOMING MAN IS IT SHOWN JESUS CALLING THE FATHER HIS “GOD”; ONLY AFTER. Again, this is all part of the plan of redemption. No wonder the Bible makes it plain that “great is the mystery (i.e. the revealed truth) of godliness”. Pride is the “mystery of iniquity” (as unfolded in the life of prideful Lucifer who, as a lesser being in nature, wanted to be equal with God both in nature and headship or status). In the meanwhile, the amazing humbleness on the part of the divine Jesus (one equal with the Father in nature) is indeed the greatest evidence of the “mystery of godliness” playing out itself in his very life, from

23

everlasting to everlasting. No wonder Paul invites all to “let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phill. 2:4-8), in that despite you may have certain equal rights, because of your nature, yet you can humbly surrender them, take a lower place of status and servitude, and give up yourself completely, for the greater good of others. I say Amen. I could keep on going and going sister Penrose-Davis, to show that it is your contrived “equality test” that has failed; not Jesus failing to be equal with the Father in nature; never in status as Head. But since the point is already more than adequately made, let me close on “Errors # 4-5” by looking at Jesus as being considered as self-existent.

JESUS IS SELF EXISTENT

Self-existence has only one biblical meaning--- the condition of having life in one’s self, and to

be able to pass it on to others. That ability and condition Jesus has as a full gift, by way of

natural inheritance, but of course “from everlasting” (Micah 5:2). See John 5:21, 26-29. And

remember, no other human could or can ever say they can give eternal life. None other! This

ability Jesus naturally had (before ‘giving it up’ while on earth), and now he has it again fully

restored (John 17:5); else he could not resurrect the dead and pass on immortal life in the

future, as he will, if he never recovered this gift of the Father upon his ascension (1 John 5:11;

John 5:21,25). He was able to give life to all of the living in creation at the beginning, and he still

has the ability after it was restored at his ascension, and so it is his voice that will raise the dead

to immortal life in the future. And remember, no other human could or can ever say they can

give eternal life. None other!

This ability, condition or attribute should not be confused with what people call “self-

origination”. “Self-origination” certainly does not apply to either the Father or Jesus. It does

not exist at all. The Father didn’t originate or bring himself into existence Himself; that’s a

ridiculous notion and is subscribed to by the ulearned and thinkers of nonsense!! He simply

has always been, from everlasting to everlasting. Just like that!! A mind blowing mystery of

the universe, of course!! While Jesus is likewise eternal, yet from eternity the Father cries out

“I have *given to my Son to have life in Himself”. John 5:26-29. Jesus is forever linked to the

Father as His true Son. Only the Father is un-begotten among the divine specie; the Son isn’t…

despite both, as well as the eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14), are “from everlasting”. Too many fail to

make the distinction. Admittedly, Jesus as a man, as the second Adam, and as our Model

forever more, Jesus is pictured in humility even today as “living by the power of God” (2 Cor.

13:4), as all part of his role as the Messiah, forever modeling for us how humans are

dependent on the Father for life. This is simply an amazing combination of the two natures in

the one God-man. No wonder Jesus has been simultaneously called both “the Son of God” and

the “son of Man” all at the same time; the Lion and the Lamb at the same time; Our Elder

Brother or Bridegroom, and our Everlasting Father all at the same time. Amazing

24

combinations!! All who say it is “impossible” to be so deny their very own words spoken in

other situations…. that “nothing is impossible with God”!! “Nothing” means simply NOTHING!!

You either believe it or you don’t!! You can’t have your cake and eat it!!

GROUP UNITY IN THE DIVINE SPECIE DOES NOT DESTROY MONOTHEISM

Let me now quote several Christian writers who, from as early as the first century, and long

before the arrival of the Roman Catholic religion in the 4th century, spoke of God and the

Godhead in the way the Bible supports (at least in the quoted portions):

100 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch

"There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know?” And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." … Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour." (Letter to the Philadelphians, chapter 2).

150 A.D. Justin Martyr

"But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all,

the Father and Begetter of the only begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our

God, Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards

became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh." … He became subject to

corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might

restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chap. 7)

25

“…with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity... both Him [the Father], and the Son …and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing *them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to everyone who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.” (First Apology, Chapter 6)

200 A.D. Hippolytus

"For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy, the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity… As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine"

(Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

There are so may like quotes I could furnish, but the point is already well established. Early

Christians, long before any Papacy arrived on the scene after the 4th century, saw no problem

in accepting the Father as the one true God, and yet equally accepting both the Son and Spirit

as divine like himself, united with Him, and deserving of like honor. Notice carefully that they

commonly recognized the Father as the one true God, but then sought to balance that truth by

presenting the Biblical truths about the equally divine Son and Spirit in relation to this one true

God. I find no problem there at all. It is indeed Biblical through and through, as imaged in Man.

Only one true God created (Mal.2:10) and also only one true God rules the universe (1 Tim.

6:14-16), yet the Father created and rules through and united with Jesus His divine Son, and

through and united with His divine Spirit!! See again Heb. 1:2, 3; John 1:1-3; Psalm 104:30; Job

33:4. Jesus (now a materialized human being, a man) shares the throne of the universe in

heaven as supreme ruler or “King of Kings” (Rev. 3:21; Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:11-16), while the

Spirit rules in our hearts on God's behalf (1 Cor. 6:19; Rom. 8:9, 10)!!

In addition, one true God redeemed us (Is. 43:11) yet the Father redeemed us through Jesus, by

way of the Spirit's involvement as well. Remember that it was the Spirit who overshadowed

Mary on the Father's behalf and begot the human Jesus (but the Father gets the credit), and it

was the Holy Spirit who empowered Jesus as a man to accomplish all he did. Yet the Father (as

"Head") ultimately gets the credit for what was done on his behalf. “God was in Christ

reconciling the world unto Himself”. 2 Cor. 5:19. That is how the Godhead works in unity of

operation, just as a human family operates (with the head being credited with a begetting,

despite the mother’s key involvement as co-reproducer), just like how an individual human

body operates in unison led by the head, and just as Christ and his church is depicted!!

26

See 2 Cor. 5:18, 19 with Heb. 9:14. And remember, a body (in imagery, or metaphorically) is

nothing without the head, and whether a being or, a complete specie, is not just the head!!

The unity of operation of all Three of the Godhead is so much so that even in death Jesus is

represented as if he himself was 'participating' in his own resurrection, though it was literally

His Father through the Spirit whom resurrected him. Remember Jesus distinctly said "I have

power to lay down my life and (I have) power to *take it up again"! And speaking of his body

after death he said "In three days *I will raise it up"!! Amazing revelations!! See John 2:19-22;

John 10:17-21; 1 Cor.6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Rom.8:11 and ponder the mind-blowing implications of

the operational unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even in Jesus' death, when we are assured

that Jesus truly and fully died!! "Great is the mystery [revealed truth] of godliness" (1 Tim.

3:16), is all I can say here!! It is no longer a secret!!

Notice too that *heavenly greetings to the Church only comes from divinity (most times from

the Father and Son), and yet we see at times that equally coming from Father, Son, and the

Holy Spirit (depicted symbolically as a “sevenfold Spirit”), as seen in Rev. 1:4-5. Greetings didn’t

always come from the Father and Son, as some would have us believe from other scriptures.

And notice that the greetings from the "sevenfold Spirit" (accepted by many scholars and Bible

Commentaries to be the Holy Spirit in symbol) is not only placed on par with that which comes

from the Father, but is mentioned even before that of Jesus' own greeting. Who would really be

so blasphemous to think that angelic spirits would be placed on par with the Father, and even

given place of mention before Jesus Himself; an honor only a being of Deity could ever rightfully

own!! If greetings can only be logically deemed as coming from persons, then we have but one

conclusion:

CONCLUSION:

THE ONE TRUE GOD (THE HEAD OF DIVINITY, AND GOD OF HUMANITY) IS INDEED THE

FATHER, BUT THE GODHEAD CONSIST OF THE PERSONS OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT.

AND EVEN A YOUNG A CHILD, WHO JUST KNOWS HOW TO COUNT FROM 1-10, WILL EASILY

RECOGNIZE WHAT IT MEANS TO COUNT "1, 2 3" WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE FATHER, THE

SON AND HOLY SPIRIT (MATT. 28:19) ALL SENDING US GREETINGS (REV. 1:4, 5) WHO ALL

TOGETHER CREATED THE WORLD, WHO TOGETHER RULES THE UNIVERSE, EITHER ON A

SINGLE “THRONE” (NOT THRONES) OR IN OUR HEARTS, AND DOING SO AFTER HAVING ACTED

TOGETHER TO SAVE US FROM SIN AND UNBELIEF!! HALLELUJAH TO THE "NAME" OF THE

FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; THE VERY SAME "NAME" JESUS

COMMISSIONED ALL TRUE FOLLOWERS TO BE BAPTIZED IN. I SAY AMEN, AND AMEN!!

RESIST NOT THE TRUTH SISTER JOY PENROSE-DAVIS, BUT BELIEVE IT UNTO SALVATION!!

27

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*APPENDIX:

A REVIEW OF THE BOOK: “JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD”

By Joy Penrose-Davis, Published in 2011

Reviewed by Derrick Gillespie (Teacher, Munro College)

INTRODUCTION:

As to what the primary theme of the book is, it is self-evident from the title of the book itself.

But it’s underlying or secondary theme is to prove that only the Father of Jesus Christ is God,

both individually, as well as generically, or in terms of specie or nature. It then seeks to

establish that Jesus is in no way, “God” in nature, that he has no divinity whatsoever, and

cannot be called divine in no sense at all.

CRITIQUING THE BOOK’S OVERALL THEME

However, the author of the book seeks to accomplish the establishment of this theme even

while misunderstanding that there is a difference between the words “nature” and “status” (or

“rank”), and totally refusing to accept the Bible’s imaging of the Godhead in either an individual

family unit, such as that of the “Davises” (her own family unit), or in the whole race of man as

descended from Adam. Gen. 1:26, 27. Because of this, the book’s argumentation right

throughout, and the conclusions drawn are misleading and false on the one hand, even while

correct in some things. That’s because the author seems to have not been able to strike the

necessary balance between accepting the Supreme Headship or superiority of status of the

Father of Jesus in the whole universe, a Being that has no equal in terms of ultimate Headship

or status in the whole universe, and the simple truth that Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son is

all that he is by nature; i.e. He himself was divine as well.

Obviously, if Jesus is God’s “only begotten Son” among other type of sons (i.e. created and

adopted ones), and is the only TRUE Son who is the “exact copy of his very being” (Heb. 1:2, 3),

28

then, in terms of original specie or by TRUE reproduction, Jesus could not be a fish, or an angel,

or a lesser specie of person than who the Father Himself is. This is because Jesus originally came

from the very Being of God Himself’ who is Himself God in nature, just as His true Son! Thus

Jesus is truly God in nature; not the Supreme Being of the Father in status or individuality or

personhood. In her own family, of the “Davises”, the truth stares the author of the book in her

face every day, and yet she has not yet seen it. In her own family the “image” of God in man is

at play, and yet the ‘scales’ has not yet fallen from her eyes to see it. Her husband, Mr. Davis,

the head of her family, like Adam, the first human and ultimate human Father of the entire

human race, is the one true Man of the home/house and head of her family by status. His

headship status is ultimate, undeniable, and has no equal, replacement, seconds, or thirds.

Thus, like Adam, he is the one true Man (male head figure) in status in the family of the

“Davises”. Yet, the author of the book is herself, by nature, truly human, i.e. truly and fully Man

by specie (nature) just as Mr. Davis is. In that sense, she herself is not a lesser or inferior specie

of being in nature. And yet Joy Davis (the author of the book) will NEVER be the TRUE or

natural/rightful head of her family, will NEVER be equal in status to her husband, the one true

Man (or head figure), and the one father of all in her family of the “Davises”. Mr. Davis is the

father of her daughter Rochelle Davis, and yet he could NEVER be the reproducer or father of

Rochelle without Joy herself being equally the mother (co-reproducer) and parent (pre-eminent

figure) of/over Rochelle, their daughter. Rochelle is a truly begotten child of theirs (i.e. she is

the literal substance of their substance); not an adopted, figurative, or manufactured one. And

so Rochelle is likewise called “Davis”, by right of natural inheritance, and is equal in nature to

both parents, but not in status to them. She, just like her mother, is not another “man” (or

male, head figure) in the family of the “Davises”, and even if Rochelle was a male/son in gender

and equal in nature to Mr. Davis, that male child still would not be in status the ultimate father

figure of the Davis family, as Mr. Davis himself is, the one true Man and Head of the family. Mr.

Davis has no one higher in status to answer to in his own human family of the “Davises”, but his

family members, all equal in nature to him, must answer to and obey him the final authority

figure in his human family.

This is the blueprint in the family that God himself established at the very beginning when he

simply said: “let us make man in our own image”. Any definition of “Man” or “humanity” that

does not accept the foregoing principles as the natural way of life is a BRAZEN rejection of the

image of God in Man. And any definition of “God” that does not correspond with this original

image, after which the human family was patterned, is erroneous, HERETICAL, a farce, and will

ultimately misrepresent the truth in the Bible about who Jesus really is as God’s only begotten

Son; both in terms of his equal nature of “divinity” with the Father, yet his subordinate status

to His Father, the one true and Supreme Father of all. In the same way Mr. Davis would not be

the father in his family without the author of the book being a mother to his child/ren (objects

29

of reproduction), so too God, the Father, would not be the Creator and Father of all objects of

creation in the first place, without His personal Word or Jesus Christ Himself doing the actual

creating on His behalf, as Paul the apostle said (see below).

“Col. 1:16 For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven,

and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or

dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him,

and for him”

The Father Himself said it PLAINLY to His Son as an acknowledgement of truth, despite he

created through the Son (just as a father ‘fathers’ a child through the mother):

“Heb. 1:10 And, Thou, Lord [Jesus], in the beginning hast laid

the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of

thine hands…”

This is a foundational Biblical truth that the book itself denies, and so no wonder, in total denial

of how her own motherhood in the family of the “Davises” parallels this truth in principle, the

author BRAZENLY declares in the book (inserts in brackets mine):

“Jesus [just like angels and humans] does not have the ability to create” – pg. 99

This is similar to saying that the author herself cannot reproduce, simply because it is Mr. Davis

who reproduces through her. This notion is HERESY (!!) of the highest order, and in denying the

foundational truths about the Godhead, whom her own family is imaged after, then no wonder

the other foundational truths get lost in train too. That is precisely why I reject the MAIN

premise of the book, and frankly denounce it as not just misleading reading material, but a

HERETICAL book in terms of the TRUE Christian faith. Without going into all the details of

theology about Jesus and the Father, and their TRUE nature and their corresponding status,

before, during and after Jesus became man on earth (I have already gone into that detail in

writing and sent it to the author; seen in the foregoing), let me sum up the MAJOR PROBLEMS

in book in the following ten points.

TEN (10) MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE BOOK

1. The book is riddled with very many instances throughout, of the author contradicting

her own self in key matters

2. The book shows very many instances of Scripture being plainly denied or contradicted

30

3. The book has several instances of arbitrary interpretations being read into the

Scriptures (eisogesis) without adequate support in the Bible, using the “line upon line”

principle

4. The book gives inaccurate translation of some Bible passages simply because those

passages, if left to read as the vast majority of Bible translations have them, then the

premise of the author would be plainly refuted by Scripture itself

5. The author uses a lot of Greek originated philosophy when speaking about Jesus as the

personal “Logos” or Word (Wisdom) of God, and yet totally refused to use the image of

the Godhead in the family (see Rom. 1:19,20 with Gen. 1:26,27) to make the issues

more understandable as related to or typified by living relationships among persons

6. As said before, the book totally confuses the concepts of equality of nature, as opposed

to superiority of status, when speaking of the Father and Son before and after Jesus

became man. In addition, the book uses flawed “equality tests” between the Father and

the Son WHILE he was on earth, and thus arrives at certain unfortunate conclusions

7. The book totally misses the point of why the Father needed to “exalt” or “promote”

Jesus (in light of his genuine humanity forevermore) above even the angels, even as he

remains a man today in heaven with glorified human form

8. The book did not accurately present the correct view of Trinitarianism as believed by

most of Christendom, due mainly to a failure to look at and use the writings of the

scholars who properly define traditional Trinitarianism; not just what the common man

in the pews of Churches say. Clearly too she failed to indicate in the book that there are

indeed varieties of ways that Christians look at the Trinity, and so a “one size fits all”

critique from her would not suffice

9. The book is specious in nature, because while it does show plainly SOME truths of the

Bible, yet in the hands of the unlearned it is a sure means of misleading precious souls

to ultimately deny the real nature of the Son, and hence a denial of the Father

(1 John 2:18-28), which creates the danger of being lost to his fellowship as a result

10. The author needed to have spent more time carefully defining all key words that are

crucial to the book, and while some were defined, not all were either defined, or

31

objectively and accurately defined, and those defined were sometimes not accurate,

and hence the reason for the miscommunication of and misunderstanding of many of

the real truths in the Bible.

CLOSING THOUGHTS AND APPEAL TO THE AUTHOR

In closing I will say this. I still defend the author’s right to freedom of conscience, and I also

protect her right to disseminate her views through this newly published book. But I am

appealing to her to be careful she does not become the means by which the Archenemy or

chief Anti-Christ, the Devil himself, dishonors Jesus’ true nature and rightful place of honor

because of that nature, even as, ironically, she tries to protect the supreme status of the Father

of all. Balancing the truths of the Bible is a matter that should not be taken lightly, since all

truths (like the commandments of God) are interconnected, and a denial of one is ultimately a

denial of all. James 2:10-12.

Your brother in Christ

Derrick Gillespie

Munro College, St Elizabeth;

Phone: 963-1847 or 385-5982; Email: ddgillespie@live.com