Theology is Bunk!

Rick Beckman - The progressive 'Christian' - Repent!

Really, if he knew what was good for him, it would be better if he 'shut up shop' and went home, rather than continue with his pontificating nonsense, for every word he spouts digs his hole of spiritual darkness ever deeper.

I have decided to publish this blog specifically to counter Mr Beckman's blasphemies against Jesus Christ. He believes in 'progressive Christianity', and even has a blog under that banner, so what we need to do first, is find out what 'Progressive Christianity' actually is, for I know that it is not a Biblical term, and this means it is man made, or of man and not of God. These terms which Bible intellectuals and theologians regularly use are what I call NVATs; short for No Value Added Terms. In other words they add nothing to Holy Scripture but rather, diminish it and in many cases make The Word of God to none effect. I will be dealing with more of these NVAT's of Mr Beckman's later. Now as I stated earlier, you won't find the term Progressive Christian in Holy Scripture and progressive Christianity is really just a hotch potch of people who, to say the least, are not confident in their belief, which in turn means they do not have a strong brotherly relationship with Jesus Christ. They are the nearest thing to Laodiceans that I have yet come across. They are repelled by people who know The Truth, and to know The Truth means to know Jesus Christ, so in turn they are repelled by people who know Jesus Christ. I will leave you all to deduce what this actually means.

Now in fairness to them they may be repelled by Bible bashers who still thump out The Ten Commandments from their pulpits, and they are quite right to be repelled by these people, for they are just modern day Galatianists, Judaisers and legalists. That said there are some of us who do know The Truth i.e. Jesus Christ and quote only Holy Scripture, not meaningless 'progressive' jargon.

Here though for the record, is a definition of what Progressive Christians are all about: "Progressive Christianity casts a very broad tent. All people are welcome as affiliates. Their fourth point invites: "....all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to): believers and agnostics, conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, women and men, those of all sexual orientations and gender identities, those of all races and cultures, those of all classes and abilities, those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope." Most affiliates probably view religious belief as a process -- a searching for truth rather than establishing truth. Most are probably liberal Christians or post-Christians who stress justice and tolerance above creedal beliefs."

Now, bearing the above Laodicean spew in mind (and I will return to this statement and examine it separately and in more detail later), this person, this Mr Beckman thinks he knows more about Scripture than a Son of God and yet another of his/their 'progressive' mantras is "we value the truth even though it can never be fully possessed" This statement is a lie and alone tells us they do not even know The Truth, nor do they understand it, never mind fully possess it - I'm not even sure if 'possess' is a correct term in this situation. What Mr Beckman is also saying, even though he will never fully know The Truth, is that he knows more about Scripture than someone who does fully know The Truth; a person who is and has been, taught directly by God through His Word without the help or teaching of any man since the days of his discipling. Do not be surprised nor taken aback by this statement for Holy Scripture supports it: 1 John 2:27 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. Please note too, that I boast in Jesus Christ and in Him alone; not in myself, nor in men nor in any religion.

Anyway, here is what he says: I will put his words in italics, my words, from my website in bold including any Scriptures and my counter comments in standard font.

"A fellow by the nickname of yes2truth made the judgment that I was biblically ignorant. Oh, and that I am, for there is far more still yet to learn from the pages of Scripture than would have even been possible to have already learned in my lifetime."

I will correct him straight away here because he is attempting to lay guilt (rather feebly) by accusing me of judging him; coming to obvious conclusions is not judging. He is right though, for progressives admit they will never fully grasp The Truth so he is only saying what we already know.
"I visited yes2truth’s website expecting typical “I’m right; you’re all wrong” divisiveness, as is often seen on, for example, fundamental Baptist, KJV-Onlyist websites (there are, praise the Lord, exceptions; at one point in time, my site was one of them, but it was not one of the exceptions). What I found when I got to his website, however, was quite different."

Ah, a little judging of his own and attacking other groups, so there is some life in that limp Laodicean liberal heart of his. Here too he lays down his intellectual credentials by attacking KJV-Onlyist people. Now this battle between those who love modern abominations and those who love only the KJV displays an emotional immaturity and a lack of understanding in God's Word. They don't like what is written in The KJV so with silly emotional knee jerk reactions they go looking for The Truth in a place where He cannot be found - modern translations. In the world they call it throwing out the baby with the bath water or cutting off your nose in order to spite your face. Futile! One good thing though, he found something quite different on my website.

"That isn’t to say the style of writing isn’t the same, but he wasn’t just attempting to enscripturate tradition, he blatantly denied the very nature of God, which I’m sorry to say calls into question not only everything he will ever preach while believing in a false god, but can one be saved while denying the God of the Bible?"

Oh yes, we mustn't 'enscripturate tradition' must we, or should we!? Who knows and who cares!? I don't, but one thing I do know and do care about is when men of religion give themselves away with their vain terminology. The first word is irrelevant but the second word is dynamite, for he is telling us who and what he is, a man of tradition. What kind of tradition? I'll tell you - The tradition(s) of men.

Col 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

You can't get much more worldly than these wretched progressives, that's for sure.

Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

He then accuses me of denying the nature of God when what I am doing is revealing the True Nature of God and exposing the papist Roman Catholic lie that he believes, i.e. the trinity. You see, we already know he follows or bases his belief on the tradition(s) of men and the trinity is a tradition of men - another non-scriptural word. It's all made up. The Apostles never taught it and that is why it is not in Scripture. Again, you see, this is all too simple for people like Mr Beckman because he loves big vain words like 'enscripturate'. The trinity was not even mentioned until an illegitemate by the name of Tertullian fabricated it circa 200 AD. Why? Because it is pagan and Rome absorbed every pagan blasphemy under the sun into its religion. This is the tradition upon which Mr Beckman puts his faith and it's all in vain.

"Yes2truth presents the God of the Bible as a three-eyed “ogre god” (for the Trinity) or a one-eyed “ogre god” (for monotheism). This is a sad case indeed, and I will reply to his article point-by-point, with his text indented and un-altered and my replies following each section. This is a serious issue–a denial of one of the most fundamental truths in the universe–so please forgive anything that seems to be a lapse in my patience. Sarcasm was the tool of both Paul and the Christ, and if I employ it here, please understand I am being nothing but scriptural in doing so."

Now his opening remark is a lie because I present the Godhead as a two eyed Godhead, and I speak metaphorically here. What I have done is revealed the trinity as false and he can't grasp it because he is indoctrinated by the lies of Rome and Protestantism. What is sad is his futile trust in men. He calls it a fundamental truth, but based on what? Lies!! He also can't grasp that I have exposed monotheism as demonic as well. These people are so unsure in what they believe they cover their bets, well they think they do, by saying God is three in one and one in three. So is God three or is He one? I'm saying They are neither They are two separate beings who are totally at one with each other and are number one and The Holy Spirit is their power. If God is one God then the Jews and Islamics must be saved for they believe in one god - that is monotheism, you cannot escape it, it is a fact, now that is a fundamental truth.

Now this mono-god is mentioned in John 8:37-45 by The Lord Jesus when He confronts the Pharisees and He tells them that their father is The Devil:

"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

So there you have it, monotheism is Devil worship. Now monotheism is really a part of trinity worship because as stated, to trinitarians, God is one in three and three in one. Just by this monotheistic dimension to the trinity, or by this factor alone we know the trinity is a blasphemous lie. He asks for forgiveness, well of course I forgive him, and so will the Father God but he must repent. He must also understand that people who believe in the trinity are multitudinous - millions of people believe it and what does Jesus Christ have to say about that and what will He say to them? I will tell you - are you listening Mr Beckman for this is for you as well?

Matt 7:22 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

The word 'many' here is English understatement; in Strong's it is given as "multitudes", so here we have it, multitudes (not one of a minority like me) who will come to the Lord and tell him about all the wonderful things they have done in His Name!!!!! These multitudes of people have done all manner of things in Jesus' name. Now these people are not the lost, they are not the unsaved they are 'False Christians' who are mostly 'trinitarians' Then the Lord will say to them "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity." There are only two main groups on the face of this earth that can lay claim to having multitudes of followers and who claim to do things in Jesus' name, and those groups are trinitarian believing organisations i.e. Roman Catholics and numerous Protestant demon-inations. Time to repent Mr Beckman.

For a final point on his last paragraph, he says that the trinity is a 'fundamental truth' when quite plainly it is a fundamental lie - a lie of The Whore of Babylon. Read on and I will provide further evidence whilst countering his blasphemies.

You will not find the word ‘Trinity’ in The Holy Bible and pay no attention to those who support this papist rubbish.

"The word “Ecclesiastes” also is not found in the Bible, but it works as a title for the book. Likewise, “Trinity” is the title given to a specific teaching. The “Beautitudes” describe a passage, as does the “Olivet Discourse.” If I called the doctrine of a six-days Creation, well, “a six-days Creation,” shall I be criticized for it? The title does not appear in Scriptures, but it is nonetheless accurate."

Here he falls into the same trap that all Bible intellectuals fall into when trying to defend the indefensible i.e. the trinity lie. You see, Ecclesiastes is in The Bible and it is the name of a book and it doesn't 'work' at anything, it's just there as a title. Furthermore, it is not a doctrine and the trinity lie is a false doctrine. The other names or NVATs he quotes - The Beautitudes and The Olivet Discourse are still man made terms but in these instances they are just harmless titles - they're useless intellectual terms, yes, but they are harmless. Again, his last point is flawed; The Biblical record of The Creation is an historical account, not a doctrine, but no doubt this Mr Beckman would love to have a go at making it a doctrine, because he probably doesn't believe it. There you are, I have revealed another Truth; they reason endlessly and pontificate about Scripture in never ending circles, and because of their unbelief they never come to an understanding of the Truth. They then fob it off by saying they will never fully possess it. Well of course they won't, it's a self fulfilling prophecy!!

"To my readers I note that seemingly anything yes2truth dislikes becomes “papist rubbish.” I wonder what these things would have been before the papacy was created in the fourth century? I also shouldn’t have to mention to yes2truth that “papist” comes for a Latin word and, according to yes2truth in his comments on the aforementioned entry, thus is part of the “Devil’s language.” He uses it anyway, and a bold move it is. Let’s see if it helps get his point across."

Ah, now we get the smug 'clever dick' stuff or what I call 'i' dotting, 't' crossing and gnat straining, and of course this all blows up in his in face like a fire cracker stuck in a blamange, when he says the papacy didn't begin until the fourth century. What happened between Peter and the fouth century then for wasn't he their first pope? The papacy is synonomous with Rome - The Whore of Babylon you cannot separate them and it's all lies, including Peter as pope. To his readers: Why do you read his garbage?

They often use the immature lame duck excuse “you won’t find the term ‘Holy Bible’ in the Holy Bible either.” The issue here is that the trinity doctrine is just that - a doctrine, whereas the term Holy Bible is not, it is a title for the Canon of Holy Scriptures and offends no one.

"People were astonished at Jesus’ doctrine, so why is it so common for me to read or hear people saying that we shouldn’t be so concerned with doctrine? Or in this case, it reads as though doctrine is a disdainful thing."

Now here is another new Truth; Bible intellectuals have changed the meaning of the word 'doctrine', and to them it is just subject matter to be debated endlessly over and over and never coming to any understanding. The Truth on the other hand is the opposite of this, for doctrine in The Greek means simply 'instruction'. Jesus Christ instructed and the people were amazed. Why were they amazed? They were amazed because they couldn't understand it; only the twelve disciples were privvy to Jesus' explanations to what He said and even they struggled to understand. Doctrine therefore is not a disdainful thing but it is in the hands of theologians and Bible intellectuals for they make it disdainful.

"And of course “Holy Bible” offends no one… especially not the Muslims who die in the name of another holy book, nor the antichristian politicians who want all mention of anything “holy” shut out of society for fear of offending the one or two open-minded people who forgot to open up their minds. The very idea that the Bible is “holy” is divisive and daring. With its use we declare the Scriptures to be pure from sin, false witness, and imperfection. With its use, we declare that it stands above all other documents as being pure and similar in nature to the Lord who inspired them: free from sin."

Now he knows that I am speaking in terms of Believers and Christians in general because my website is aimed at Believers and no one else. So he really has no defence or excuse for this twisting of what I have said. The term Holy Bible does not offend any believer but his intellectualising and trinity lie does. Let's hope I don't find any more cheap tricks further on in his diatribe.

Furthermore you will not find the word Monotheism in The Holy Bible either; another flawed doctrine. Those in mainstream Christianity who believe in these expressions of God are totally deceived. Metaphorically, one - the trinity god, is an ogre god with three eyes and the other - the mono god, is an ogre god with one eye and if you believe in a god that is like either of these then your belief is in vain.

"The challenge is made. The game is set. Here yes2truth apparently searches in vain for some biblical descriptions and comes up horribly short; instead, he jumps into the realm of mythology and pulls out “ogre.” It’s okay; it’s not in the Bible, but he can use it anyway. He isn’t us, after all. (Though to make it easy on him in the future, the correct Bible word for a false god is “idol.”)"

Who is challenged? I'm not, but he is it would seem. The game is set - what game? I am not playing a game, I'm deadly serious. Neither do I search in vain, only theologians do that. He then starts to criticise my 'ogre god' analogies or metaphors, now any good preacher or teacher will use simple descriptive mind pictures to get a point across - this is not theology you know or antinomianism - don't you just love that one I bet old Rick does! Furthermore it is obvious Mr Beckman is not a preacher and a good job too!! Yes ogre gods are idols too but the negative effects of the ogre side to these idol's natures is what needs to be exposed and shared in order to free True Believers from ogre god worshipers like you Mr Beckman.

Deut 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Eternal and self-existent) our God (Elohim [Hebrew] means plural) is one (unified, united and number one and none above) LORD (Eternal and self-existent):

The Godhead has always been two who are unified or united or at one with themselves - in complete and total agreement; this is the True Godhead, again, metaphorically a God with two eyes (and would you believe we are made in their image!?).

"Metaphorical descriptions are apparently the foundation of his belief; he’s yet to give us a Scripture that explicitely saves him from being labeled a Bible-rejecter. However, I see his metaphor, and I see a god with two gods for eyes and this is supposed to be the image of a human with two eyes for eyes. Fascinating. Let’s try a better comparison:"

Before I answer his stupid comments I will write here the part of my webpage article that he conveniently ommitted!!

The word 'God' is Elohim in the Hebrew language and Elohim is plural of the word Eloha. Now if God was one then the word Eloha would have been used, not Elohim. Notice too, that The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this fundamental foundational Scripture

OK, back to his mumbo jumbo: Here his fallacious nonsense continues by making an unfounded emotional remark; he says that: "my metaphorical descriptions are the foundation of my belief" This he knows is not true because he knows that I believe in Jesus Christ and the Father God. He also knows that I believe in The Holy Spirit but what irks him is that I don't believe in his Roman Catholic/Protestant lie. To support this belief in a lie he says "let's try a better comparison" Notice he doesn't say "Here is a better comparison" so he is not even sure about what he is going to say now.

"God is Father, Son, and Spirit; man is spirit, body, and soul. The soul acts as the intermediary between the spirit and body just as the Spirit acts as an intermediary of sorts with the Father and the Son."

No, there is no god that is Father, Son and Spirit and nowhere in Scripture does it say that. There is Father God and Jesus God and the Holy Spirit which is their power, they are two separate beings with an almighty power - The Holy Spirit. That same Spirit eminates from them, but it is not a separate being nor is it a personage. Nor is the Godhead one, they are not two in one and they certainly aren't three in one.

Deut 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Eternal and self-existent) our God (Elohim [Hebrew] means plural) is one (unified, united and number one and none above) LORD (Eternal and self-existent):

The two are united or in unity with each other as one in singleness of mind, this means they are totally likeminded - they agree totally on everything on every subject with each other, but they are not one being. The Hebrew word here for 'one' is primarily as a digit or number one this means the Godhead is number one there are no beings above them they are the tops so to speak - none above

Man is not spirit, body and soul. A body is one and the same thing as a soul. Man is a living body or a living soul with the breath of life in his nostrils just the same as the beasts of the field. The spirit in man makes him a living soul and that spirit returns to God when a man dies - when his soul or body dies.

Num 19:13 "Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him."

Here in this passage of Scripture we have the words 'body' and 'soul' and the Hebrew word for these two words is exactly the same - Nephesh, so a body is one and the same thing as a soul and souls die!

They are not a triune of personages otherwise Paul’s greetings to the Churches in his letters would have included the Holy Spirit with The Father and The Son in his greetings, but he didn’t. Check the Scriptures for yourselves The Holy Spirit is never mentioned in his greetings. Now if the Holy Spirit was a personage of the Godhead do you think Paul would have omitted ‘His’ inclusion in those greetings?

His answer to The Truth that I have written above is classic 'explaining away' intellectualism and theology. His remarks are written below and they are pure human reasoning; there is not one ounce of Spiritual discernment in anything he writes.

"It is a dangerous doctrine the foundations of which are built upon the assumptions of a man. “If A was true, then I think B should have happened; if B didn’t happen, then A can’t be true.” Unfortunately, God does not conform to the expectations of a man, and it is up to us to bend or to break to conform to His expectations for us."

Ah! Doctrine is now dangererous. Where does he get that idea from? Since when has instruction in The Truth been dangerous? It may sound dangerous to him because he has not heard it before, he has been fed lies for years and is convinced they are truth - the word delusion comes to mind. Now he refers to The Truth as assumptions - the assumptions of a man, but what he is really saying is this: "this yes2truth is really rocking my theological boat, he has pointed out a Truth in Scripture for which I have no real answer so, because I can't handle it, I will sweep it aside as the assumptions of a man". Is it, perhaps, that he thinks Paul was lapse in his respect for Rick Beckman's future belief in a trinity, a trinity that has never existed. Perhaps he thinks Paul, too, is assuming there are only two personages in the Godhead? The reality here is this: There is only one assumption and that assumption is that God is three in one and one in three; Tertullian assumed it back in 200 AD and blaspheming silly men in equally silly hats have assumed it ever since, including deceived Rick - have you got a silly hat Rick?.

Of course not, the Holy Spirit was and is the Power of the Godhead and Paul knew this; he knew The Holy Spirit is the Power of the Godhead, and not a person.

"Blasphemer. There, I said it. The Holy Spirit is God. He can be nothing less. He is referred to as a person multiple times. Note the repeated use of personal pronouns in reference to the Holy Spirit in John 14:16,17. A power, force, influence, or other such impersonals are not “comforters” and they are certainly not a “he”! Further, look at Acts 5:3,4. Could Ananias and Sapphira have lied to a power, force, or spirit? Or did they lie to the Holy Spirit (v.3), who is almost immediately called God (v.4). It is a strange thing to think that “the power of God” is “God,” especially if it is supposedly the “Holy Spirit” which is not “God.” Not even a Vulcan could process that logic and not get a headache."

Hmm. A blasphemer eh? Well we'll see about that and by the time I have finished explaining the Scriptures he has quoted we will then know who the blasphemer really is. The Holy Spirit is not God it is the Power of God - it is from God, for God is Spirit but the Holy Spirit from God is not a separate being apart from God as is Jesus Christ which, ironically, I will prove from the very Scriptures that Mr Progressive Beckman has quoted to support the trinity lie. Stay with it folks.

OK, John 14, let's have a look at the whole chapter so as to get an over view of what The Lord Jesus was saying here. Straight away we get the theme or thrust of this passage and it's all about The Lord 'leaving' his disciples; He is warning them of what is about to take place and that He will not always be there with them - physically. He therefore begins to reassure them by telling them that He is going to prepare a special place for them in His Kingdom. He then tells them that He is The Way, The Life and The Truth and it is crucial to take on board these titles especially the title of The Truth. He then explains to them - Phillip in particular, that they know The Father, if they know Him, for to know Jesus Christ is to know the Father, but notice, He doesn't then follow that up by saying if you know Me, you will then know The Holy Spirit - Why? Simple, because The Holy Spirit is not a personage of The Godhead. Jesus then teaches them that The Father is in Him. He also teaches them that they, as Born Again believers, in the future will do greater things than The Lord Himself because He will have gone to be with The Father; again not gone to be with The Father and The Holy Spirit.

Now we come to Mr Progressive's mistaught Scriptures and before I start, keep in mind that these verses are written in the context of The Lord's imminent departure and involve the disciple's fears of being left alone without Him.

John 14:16-18 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

Verse 16: The Lord promises to send another (Strong's 'different') Comforter (Strong's 'advocate', 'consoler', 'intercessor'). Now some pertinent questions: Who intercedes for us with The Father? Who is our advocate in Heaven with The Father? Who can empathise and sympathise with us in order to console us? Who has had first hand experience of the human condition and is the Person who is qualified to carry out these tasks? Only one person - Jesus Christ. So am I saying the Comforter is not The Holy Spirit, no certainly not, but the Holy Spirit is the means by which Jesus Christ comforts us, intercedes for us, advocates for us and consoles and strengthens us. Through His Power - The Holy Spirit.

Jesus was telling His Disciples that although He would be absent from them in the flesh, He would still be with them, only more powerfully with them, through His Spirit - The Holy Spirit. Ah, but hang on, the Scriptures say a 'different Comforter' or 'another Comforter' don't they? Yes they do, but who is this Comforter? One Comforter was already with them in the flesh Jesus Christ and the other Comforter was going to be with them through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the future, so this must mean The Comforter was one and the same Person - Jesus Christ. So how was this different? I have already explained it: The Comforter was always Jesus Christ and the difference was a physical Jesus Comforter and a Spiritual Jesus Comforter. The difference too is in the limitations of human condition (Jesus in the flesh) as compared with the non-limitations of the Spiritual condition (Jesus as a Resurrected Spirit being). In the last part of verse 16 it reads "That he may abide with you forever" The word 'he' here should be 'it' for in the Greek language 'it' and 'he' are the same Greek word. What we have therefore in this verse 16 is a translation error or a translation choice. This error was caused by Roman Catholic men who contaminated Holy Scripture with their Vulgate translation. They had an agenda, an agenda to to authenticate via Scripture the trinity lie and let's not forget their guy Tertullian invented it. This means they needed to change or tinker with Holy Scriptures in order to support their lies.

Right, let's move on to verses 17-18 Where Jesus spells it out clear as clear can be: He refers to the Spirit of Truth which should read the Spirit of The Truth. Now Jesus Christ is The Truth and it is Him that no one could see and could not receive and did not know because He was Born of The Spirit. People did not know Him when He walked this earth, they could not understand Him, so could not receive Him, only twelve people followed Him and understood Him in part, they knew Him for He dwelled with them and later would be in them via The Holy Spirit. This is then confirmed when He says; verse 18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you" So there you have it, Jesus Christ is the Comforter, made possible by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - He is the one that is coming to the disciples to comfort them.

Now we move on to Acts 5:3-4 and again we have the same misunderstanding on the part of Mr Beckman. As you can see from my discourse above I have already proved that The Holy Spirit is not a personage of a triune Godhead, so Acts 5:3-4 that Mr Beckman quotes, cannot be a contradiction of what I have already revealed, for there are no contradictions in The Word of God. Never-the-less there is much confusuion about Scripture which is caused by theologians and progressive 'Christians' through their insecurity of "never fully possessing The Truth" - their words, not mine. The bottom line here to this passage of Scripture is: The Holy Spirit does not have to be a personage of a trinity in order to be blasphemed against.

So what is it, about this episode in the first century Church with Ananias and Sapphira? What was their sin? Was it, just, that they had lied to the Holy Spirit and thereby to God, or is it more than this? In order to get into the atmosphere of this occasion we need to read the verses in the previous chapter, for this is a time of great zeal and enthusiasm in the Church and many members were moved to be exeedingly generous with their possessions to help other members in need. The Holy Spirit was moving in them to do great works including Peter's shadow healing people. So this is the back drop to Ananias' and Shappira's wickedness. Notice too, this verse: Acts 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Great Grace was upon them all. Now we'll go to Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Have any of you ever noticed the 'God forbid' bit in this verse, and in turn wondered how God would forbid if we continue in sin, once under Grace? Now see Ananias and Sapphira in this light, they were trampling over the Lord's sacrifice. Now notice Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? What does Peter ask Ananias first? "Why hath Satan FILLED THINE HEART?" Do you know what this means and how serious it is? In order for this to happen we must turn away from the Lord and blaspheme against The Holy Spirit. It means that a Born Again believer, in this case Ananias, has allowed The Devil back into his heart completely, where The Holy Spirit is supposed to reside. The lie about the price of the land was the outward expression of their wickedness, the 'fruits' of their inner spiritual catastrophe.

OK, we have ascertained that Ananias and Sapphira have blasphemed against The Holy Spirit, which in turn is the sin for which there is no further forgiveness. Now here, is a feature of the Godhead that all theologians miss; we can blaspheme against Jesus Christ and be forgiven and we can blaspheme against God and be forgiven, but not when we blaspheme against The Holy Spirit. Now if the Godhead are three in one, and one in three they must all be equal, they cannot be anything else but equal for they are all one and the same Spirit Being - according to trinitarians, that is. Indeed, if blasphemed against then that offence must apply equally in relationship to all three, but as we know, it doesn't, so The Holy Spirit must be different from the Father God and Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit is 'on its own' in this sense. Now Mr Beckman uses the reasoning that Ananias having lied to The Holy Spirit is one and the same thing as having lied to God The Father and we know from the evidence I have given that this is not wholly the case, for one offence is more serious than the other and carries a stiffer penalty.

I'll move on now for there is a another verse in Acts 5 which also counters the trinity lie and supports my earlier discourse about Jesus Christ being The Comforter. Acts 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Notice here The Holy Spirit is now the Spirit of The Lord which has been tempted. This is yet another example of The Holy Spirit being 'of' Jesus Christ or 'from Him' i.e. His Power, it is not an individual personage of an egalitarian trinity and nowhere in Scripture does it say that The Holy Spirit is a personage.

This has been a long answer to the nonsense in his last comment, but needed to be addressed in detail and before I move on there is one final point he makes. He said: "Not even a Vulcan could process that logic and not get a headache." Now there you have it, another gem of Bible intellectuals - their logic and this is the problem, for the trinity lie is just that a man's logic - old Tertullian in 200 AD. Move this logic problem forward in time eighteen hundred years and magnify it a thousand fold and that same logic put the NIV Bible together and all the other blasphemous modern translations that make The Word of God to none effect.

There is only one verse in The Holy Bible that states God is three in one - 1 John 5:7. This verse was added and you will not find it any original Greek writing. So who added it? Surprise, surprise - The old whore of Babylon in Rome who else? The trinity doctrine is just another Roman Catholic lie.

On the contrary, the impression I get in reading about 1 John 5:7 is that at one point it was placed there by a scribe as a margin note–much as people take margin notes today. However, today are Bibles aren’t copied by others; we have publishers to do that for us. Then, however, scribes and others who wanted a copy of the Scriptures for themselves would have to copy by hand somebody else’s. Upon encountering marginal notes, a decision would have to be made to include them or not–as sometimes scribes would mistakenly leave something out and place it in the margin rather than scrap the project (writing materials were more precious then than now). Seeming like a logical piece of the text, someone’s marginal note became part of the canon via simple copyist mistake. There was no grand conspiracy to invent a doctrine, for as can be simply shown, as above, the Holy Spirit is a person, not a “power” or “force.”

Oh, on the contrary is it? Well actually there is no contrary about it at all. 1 John 5:7 just isn't in the original Greek transcripts. It isn't there!!!!!! Even my blasphemous NIV Greek Interlinear excludes it - The NIV no less, you know all those chums of Rick Beckman who wrote a Bible to fit their own ideas of what certain Scriptures mean, rather than The Truth of what God intended in His Word. Here is what it says word for word: Late MSS of the Vulgate ADD "In heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth." So there you have it, and to support that I will quote Adam Clarke from his commentary "It is likely that this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS., one excepted." It is wanting in every MS except for one, and no doubt Rome had their contaminating hands on that version too. Mr Beckman says that (after he had written yet another meaningless paragraph,) and I quote again: "There was no grand conspiracy to invent a doctrine, for as can be simply shown, as above" No conspiracy eh? Well I think the non-prejudiced evidence says otherwise don't you? The issue here is not whether this verse was added by papist sons of the Devil or not, for plainly it was. The issue is why did they add it? The answer of course is simple, to contaminate God's Word with the deity of a vile pagan religion, for that is where the trinity god originates - Egypt and Hinduism, otherwise known as polytheism - as many gods as you like and some!!

The first five books of the Bible are supposed to be The Lord’s work through Moses’ hand. I am happy with this teaching. No ordinary man, apart from Enoch, Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs and the Prophets, could claim to know more about the nature of the Godhead than Moses.

"That is an intersting claim. Moses had an incomplete revelation of God. He may have seen God personally, but to see God and to understand His nature are two separate things. The Apostles, which are excluded from your list, likely knew more about God than any previous men who had ever lived, simply by virtue of the fact that they had not only the revelations of the past, but also the new revelations of the New Covenant to understand God by, revelations which opened the Old Testament and shed light where before there were but shadows of things to come."

Oh, it's an 'interesting claim' is it? Now that is real Theologians jargon for you. Here are some Scriptures to support my 'interesting claim' Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua. Exodus 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. Exodus 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. Moses had an incomplete revelation of God Oh yes it was 'very incomplete' - this guy is unbelievable, and I am not wasting any more time on him. Here is something else to think on, too, if he is a 'progressive' Christian, you would want to meet a regressive Christian, would you??!! You couldn't make it up!

y2t

The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ: The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ

The Simplicity that is in Christ

posted by yes2truth aka Charles Crosby @ 8:18 pm 54 comments