Monday, August 07, 2006

Shawn McGrath - A Viper and Whited Sepulchre.

Introduction

Where do they all come from, 'cos they're a dime a dozen, that's for sure ? There must be some factory(s) somewhere, that churns these people out on a conveyor belt (let's see, I think they call them 'Bible Colleges' don't they?), all with trinity stamped on their foreheads and "papist supporter" on their backsides - they put it there because with their mouths they say they oppose Rome, but in reality in their heart they refer to it as 'The Church of Rome' which automatically gives Rome credence. To compound this treacherous double standard, all of Rome's wickednesses and stinking abominations are 'silly' - yes 'silly', that's what this wretched McGrath individual said, he didn't say they were evil beyond measure or vile and wicked, but silly. You couldn't excuse them more if you tried!! Have these people ever studied Anglo/European history!? If they have, do they just turn a blind eye to what they read!? You see, the fact that he refers to Rome as The Church of Rome means (even though he 'opposes' it) he still believes and acknowledges it as a church, which in turn means he acknowledges it as the original 'church.' This, when all the evidence quite clearly exposes it for what it is, a money making organization posing as a church. It always was, and always will be, until it it is destroyed by Jesus Christ in the last days. Rome is a counterfeit, and this can be proven from Scripture along with the fact that it is The Whore of Babylon. Now here's the rub, in order for the trinity to stand, Rome must stand, and this is where all demon-inations, splinters or off-shoots of Rome fall, and then build their beliefs on a rotten foundation.

OK, back to his word 'silly.' Now this word 'silly' speaks volumes about him in other ways too, it says, amongst other things, that he has much more in common with Rome than he is prepared to admit. He certainly has more in common with Rome than he does with me. How do I know that? I know, because he fails to fully repudiate Rome and speak fully against it.

The above, makes Mr McGrath a man of religion, and even though he says he is not religious, I know that he is, because I have have had exactly the same type of conversation with Roman Catholics and they use exactly the same smug conceited tone and style of writing, exactly the same terms and phrases, and exactly the same big words which no one, but they, can understand - with the exception of course, the word 'silly'. Oh how they love to show off and impress each other with their big words and highfalutin terms and phrases, but what they never realise, is that all this big word knowledge is useless when it comes to explaining The Word of God - simple small words are all that is necessary. You see, they have no understanding of the "simplicity that is in Christ" 2 Cor 11:3. As I have already said, the use of big words says everything we need to know about Mr McGrath and when I say everything, I mean everything, for the use of big words is sheer vanity. Big words never help the reader or listener, they're always for those who love the sound of their own voices and those who want to impress others of the same ilk. I will be giving some examples of Mr McGrath's big vain words later.

For a final point we also need to understand that Bible intellectuals are very very 'clever' and they know it, and this is always their undoing, because their pride and vanity is their Achilles heel. I have learned too that Messrs Beckman and McGrath are buddies - should I be surprised? Well, you know the old saying - "birds of a feather flock together" and both waiting for the Lord to say to them "depart from me ye who do iniquity, for I never knew you" Time to repent guys!!! - Three exclamation marks to go with your blasphemous conjoured up trinity.

The e-mails.

Now, here we are, here is his first communication, and I have put all his comments in red italics as a warning to those of you who would believe Roman Catholic papist lies - the lies of the man made trinity deity.

My e-mail answers to him are in blue italics.

"Correct me if I'm wrong but in your blog post to Rick Beckman, You made the claim that the Trinity is essentially a fallacy created by the Papacy, it this correct? Would it be possible to give us some substantiation with regards to this claim?"

As I start, I will make plain his tone and style of writing, for he says: Oh, "correct me if I'm wrong." Now this statement is a lie, because these people are not correctable, well, not in this age they're not. The truth is, he e-mailed me to 'correct' me, not the other way round! I also know they're not correctable, because I have been communicating with these wretched people for years and they are all the same - Spiritually blind Bible intellectuals and deluded men of religion!

Here is my e-mailed answer, just for the record:

"Please note, first and foremost, that I make no claims, I only state what is Biblically true.

Physically, it is not accepted that the papacy started the trinity lie, but it is the spirit of the papacy, for they lay claim to the nonsense that Peter was the first pope. So in spirit the papacy lie began in the first century. Physically though there was a real father of Roman Catholicism in the first century and his name was Simon (the sorcerer) Magus who wanted to buy The Holy Spirit from Peter. This again is a spirit - the spirit of the love of money that has always permeated Rome.

As far as I know, because I'm not that interested, the first pope was Stephen I circa 258. The thing is, an illegitimate by the name of Tertullian is regarded as the originator of the trinity lie circa 200 AD.

Secondly, I did make this all very clear in my blog answer to Mr Beckman's blasphemies and in answers to those who made comments thereafter. If you have a read it will all be made quite clear to you, for all the Biblical evidence is there."

He replied with this:

"You said:"

"Please note, first and foremost, that I make no claims, I only state what is Biblically true."

"I appreciate your zeal and reverence for the scriptures and their truths, I would ask, from a biblical perspective, how you defend your position since there are numerous references to the Son being God (Jehovah) and the Holy Spirit being God (Jehovah) yet it is explicitly taught that in scripture that there is only one God? Do you simply deny the Tri-unity of God or are you opposed, as Unitarianism states, to the fact that Christ is Yahweh?"

Now first of all, here we have his patronising, smug, 'superior' attitude with an opening throw away remark, for there is no way he appreciates anything of what The Lord says through me, only someone in agreement with me would appreciate my zeal and reverence, not someone who is totally opposed to me and to God. All he is really doing here is mocking me with an intellectual sarcasm. The real issue here is this, he has either not read what I stated in my blog to Beckman or he just doesn't understand a word of it. Probably both!

I will reprint and reinforce what I said to Beckman and for his Biblically ignorant friend.

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 united or at one with themselves, totally likeminded, and it is being united in this way that makes them one, one as a team. Now what 'mastermind' doesn't understand is that God - a plurality (Elohim) that is united is therefore one unit, but any group (Elohim) that is united is always made up of individuals; Manchester United is one football team of 11 individuals - one team. This is the nature of the Godhead and notice, this verse does not mention The Holy Spirit - The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this verse. For The Holy Spirit to be in this verse, man would have to conjure it up or ignorantly assume it. The Godhead are two who are united as one team. The other meaning of the word one (Echad) is 'first' or 'number one' or 'none above' but the primary meaning is united, but not one being, for them to be one being then Eloha is the Hebrew word that means singular, not Elohim. This is The Truth which Mr McGrath doesn't understand and now wastes a lot of his time trying to prove the unprovable! Finally, we must understand this, anything, and I mean anything, he states after this can only be a contradiction of Deut 6:4 and there are no contradictions is God's Word. The Godhead does not change - period. In reality, he was in error as soon as he put his fingers to his keyboard, but then he is a Bible Intellectual, so we must expect this, for they know no better.

"Physically, it is not accepted that the papacy started the trinity lie, but it is the spirit of the papacy, for they lay claim to the nonsense the Peter was the first pope. So in spirit the papacy lie began in the first century. Physically though there was a real father of Roman Catholicism in the first century and his name was Simon (the scorcerer) Magus who wanted to buy The Holy Spirit from Peter. This again is a spirit - the spirit of the love of money that has always permeated Rome."

"Your reasoning is interesting yet I am not quite certain if its consistent."

Now here is an Achilles heel give away and he reveals his Spiritual blindness, because first of all he thinks, I am like him when he says "your reasoning". Let's get this straight, only Bible intellectuals reason! Spirit Born sons of God discern. Now because he reasons and I discern he will never understand what I say, so he follows up with the remark "I am not quite certain if its consistent." Of course it's not consistent to him because he doesn't understand a word of what I am saying.

"The papacy was essentially fallacious in its fundamental nature; yet would you refer to the "Bishop of Rome" as heretical? I only ask this because there were other Bishops such as those of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinopole, Sardis et al. who were responsible for their different districts, and the first Christians were called Catholic in the sense that they represented the universal church. This is why today we refer to the Church of Rome as the "Roman Catholic Church". Were these other Bishops, in your view, heretical also? Furthermore, you claimed in your post to Mr. Beckman that the trinity was a Papal lie and papist rubbish yet you can't trace it back to an actual Pope, hence is your statement consistent in its nature?"

Here he answers his own question but can't see that either. Rome - Bishops - Heretical, he said it, why did he ask me? The true Church was always "The Church of God," have you ever noticed the absence of God's name in the names of most of the demon-inations including Rome? His name is not there because they are not of Him, but of men, as is the trinity.

The thing is, an illegitimate by the name of Tertullian is regarded as the originator of the trinity lie circa 200 AD.

"Actually, this is not entirely true Mr. Crosby since the Tri-unity of God was proclaimed by almost every early Christian in their writings."

Now this statement is a lie. The first man to verbalise the word 'trinity' was Tertullian in circa 200 AD and to use Mr McGrath's terminology below: "all Tertullian really did was conjure up a term to express the truth" Again we have another major intellectual slip up here because Tertullian was 'conjouring' up 'the truth' according to Mr McGrath. Since when has The Truth which is Jesus Christ, needed magic? Now these little incidents display a far bigger fault line in the foundation of Mr McGrath's beliefs and what goes on inside his deceived mind.

"Ignatius of Antioch, a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the apostle John, wrote between 110 and 117 A.D. in his epistle to the Ephesians the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God, In chapter 7, Ignatius affirms Jesus Christ our Lord is God in the flesh (eph. 7:2) Ignatius referred to Jesus as God a dozen times in his writings. Also, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, (around A.D. 160) speaks of the Lord Jesus as Lord and God (129) and states further This very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God and man as God coming forth from above and man living among men (64). Melito of Sardis wrote, in A.D. 170, that by nature God and man (speaking of Jesus)and the almighty God has made His dwelling through Christ Jesus and even stated that He rose from the dead as God, being by nature God and Man inasmuch as He begets, Father, inasmuch as He is begotten, Son; inasmuch as He is buried, Man; inasbmuch as He is raised, God (96). As you can see, the early church was clear on its view of the Divine Nature of the Messiah."

Nothing he has written here proves the Godhead is a trinity, not one word of it, all he has done is quoted references to Jesus being God. I am not saying He isn't God, what I am saying is what Scripture says and it is this: that The Godhead comprises of two beings and they are Jesus God and The Father God - the Holy Spirit is their power and is not a personage of a closed trinity.

"The thought that Tertullian somehow was the originator of the Trinity is somewhat misleading since all Tertullian really did was conjure up a term to express the truth that was already being proclaimed at that time. If you'll take the time to research, you'll see that it was the whole concept of God not being a Trinity that is foreign to Patristic writings and that the only time we really see the writings denying the Deity of Christ is later on during the Arian invasion."

There is only one thing "misleading" here, notice the words: "The thought". Here again, we can see the way his evil mind works. In a sense these words say it all, first it reveals his arrogance and then his 'snake in the grass' use of words, because he refers to historic evidence about Tertullian as a 'thought'. All Bible intellectuals and theologians use this tactic to explain things away they don't agree with, especially The Truth. Then he lies again "to express the truth that was already being proclaimed at that time." and contradicts himself by admitting that Tertullian conjoured the trinity lie up. The only people that were teaching the trinity lie as truth at that time were counterfeiters - early Roman Catholics or servants of The Whore of Babylon, if you prefer. This is the "mystery of iniquity" that Paul refers to in 2 Thess 2:7.

"I would prefer to have a biblical discussion on whether or not the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ Jesus our Lord since it is our sole infallible inspired truth that we can rely on for certainty. I await your reply!"

This remark again proves he had either not read my blog to Mr Beckman, or he had, and it was a foreign language to him, for he certainly hasn't understood it. Furthermore, by Biblical discussion he means endless debate and never coming to a knowledge of The Truth. Notice too, no capital 'B' for Biblical which shows his contempt for God's Word and the arrogant conceited exclamation mark after the word 'reply.' Only little things I know, but they all add up.

OK, here is my reply to that e-mail:

"Hello again Mr McGrath,

I must admit that the so called 'history of the church' in Asia, the Middle East and Europe after the death of John is not something I have spent any time on because being an adherent of the teachings of British Israel, I know it is not that important. In fact I have never considered any of it to be of The Truth, but rather the reports of men to support the lie that Rome is the church. I have heard of Polycarp but after him it all seems to be counterfeiters and for the reasons I will give you below.

I know that the real church was planted here in the British Isles by Peter, Andrew, Mary and probably James. Some commentators say Paul too, but I am not so convinced of this as there were no gentiles in Britain until the Roman invasions, unless of course he came here after that. Augustine and Patrick were counterfeiters.

I also know that Paul said this: 2 Thess 2:7 "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

This passage tells us all about Catholicism and it's Protestant off-shoots - The Whore and her daughters and the fact that God has sent them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie, and the trinity is a part of that lie. It also tells us that even in Paul's day the Babylonian mystery religion was already at work and causing him great difficulty, and by 100 AD The Church had been hijacked. If, as you say, it was being called 'universal' and 'catholic' that proves the dastardly deed had been done. The True Church - The Ecclesia - those called out, then went underground where it has always been. Sir Isaac Newton being a perfect example and an exposer of the trinity lie!

The True Church is known as The Church of God and it is known by no other name. I know, I am a member. Any other 'church' or better, an organisation, is not the church. These organisations have True Believers in their midsts, yes but they are being called out of them by God: Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. I have not attended a 'church' for seven years. Praise The Lord!!

As for all these people you quote i.e. Ignatius etc. well he has some big question marks over his head. "Ignatius is the earliest writer outside the New Testament to describe Christ under the categories of current philosophy" Bad news! Since when has Holy Scripture needed philosophers. I am only persuaded that he was just another counterfeiter. He also said Jesus Christ was raised in the flesh - very bad news indeed!

I think you need to re-read my reply to Mr Beckman, for all the evidence is there. The trinity is a lie and I have proved it. I John 5:7 is a spurious verse added by papists and Jesus Christ is the comforter John 14:18. There you have it. The Godhead is Two plus their power The Holy Spirit. They are not three in one and one in three and you will not find a Scripture to support it. Furthermore the apostles didn't teach it and if God is one, then Jews and Islamics are saved, now there's a thought!

Here is a question for you: If The Holy Spirit is a personage of a trintity why does Paul not greet the churches in 'his' name? He only ever uses the names of the Father and The Son.

Thank you for writing again but further correspondence will be futile on your part, if you think I can believe a lie."

y2t

First of all, you will note here that he just cherry picked one sentence out four paragraphs that I had I written because British Israel is a subject he knows nothing about. He also doesn't understand 2 Thess 2:7 so he ignored that too.

Dear Mr. Crosby:

"My deepest thanks for responding to my last email and with such haste!"

Another lie and more arrogant sarcasm with added exclamation mark.

"You said:

"The True Church - The Ecclesia - those called out, then went underground where it has always been."

"Exactly who are these who are called out and can you identify some of these people that went underground? I am unfortunately ignorant of knowing of any doing such. I am in agreement with you that the church is nothing more than a gathering of people and not an organization yet I see nothing wrong with assembling with fellow believers in breaking bread, prayer, baptism, study of scripture ect"

I had already answered him with Paul's words and Revelation, but he couldn't see it (or didn't want to see it) and he couldn't tie in Rome with what I was saying. This is Spiritual blindness or just plain rudeness in ignoring what I said.

Paul draws our attention to the "mystery of iniquity" - this is a direct referrence to the Babylonian Mystery Religion of Revelation, that, notice "doth already work" We must understand the serious threat that religion posed to the fledgling Churches and by 100 AD it had taken over. By default therefore we know that True Believers would have left and gone underground to avoid persecution, not just from the pagan authorities, but from the men of religion like Constantine who conquered supposedly in Christ's name but in reality was a murdering son of the Devil.

Constantine represents a new era for the Pharisees. These new Pharisees were just as evil, if not more so, as those in Judea and that is what Mr McGrath is, a 21st century Pharisee. He proves it too, because his blog has an Old Covenant title "Gathered on Holy Ground" This is another sign of his Biblical ignorance and Bible intellectual credentials, because he uses Holy sounding terms and phrases without knowing what they mean, nor what they represent. As long as it's 'logical' or the 'reasoning' is sound, it sounds religious and looks 'right' that's fine by him. In real terms, though, it tells us he's a ravening wolf and not qualified to utter a word on Holy
Scripture.

I have not attended a 'church' for seven years. Praise The Lord!!

"Mr. Crosby, are there any that you gather with at all? The Bible says that if two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst (Matthew 18:20) hence isnt gathering together an important part of our Christian walk?"

"As for all these people you quote i.e. Ignatius etc. well he has some big question marks over his head. "Ignatius is the earliest writer outside the New Testament to describe Christ under the categories of current philosophy" Bad news! Since when has Holy Scripture needed philosophers. I am only persuaded that he was just another counterfeiter. He also said Jesus Christ was raised in the flesh - very bad news indeed!"

Would you be able to provide evidence that Ignatius was a philosopher? I have yet to encounter any verification that would persuade me to think that. A good source would sure be appreciated!

I think you need to re-read my reply to Mr Beckman, for all the evidence is there. The trinity is a lie and I have proved it. I John 5:7 is a spurious verse added by papists and Jesus Christ is the comforter John 14:18. There you have it. The Godhead is Two plus their power The Holy Spirit. They are not three in one and one in three and you will not find a Scripture to support it. Furthermore the apostles didn't teach it and if God is one, then Jews and Islamics are saved, now there's a thought!

"I'm afraid Mr. Crosby that you have proven nothing of the sort. I need not utilize 1 John 5:7 with regards to providing evidence for the Trinity. Once again, can you offer evidence that 1 John 5:7 was added by a pontiff of Rome? It found its way into the King James Bible due to the unfortunate decision of Desiderius Erasmus."

"I have proved it, it's just that you can't see it. I use the word 'papist' to cover all Roman Catholics, for it is this blasphemy that descibes them best. It is just my personal label for them. Peter was their first pope so the papacy has always been a defining sign of Roman Catholicism so saying their was no actual pope involved in the addition of 1 John 5:7 is neither here nor there. They have always claimed Peter as pope so let the papacy lie take the blame for corrupting God's Word. The addition was put in the Vulgate and that to me that is a papist book and full of contaminations and many of these vile contaminations were transfered to the KJV.

The 1 John 5:7 issue says everything about the trinity lie, and it sets a precedent, a precedent of the agendas of men. Men added this verse to support their man made doctrine and there is no way you or anyone else can explain this fact away. This fact alone tells us the trinity is a lie, I need no other evidence but the deceived do and I'm not even sure a library full of evidence would persuade them because they don't want to believe it is a lie. You can lead a horse to water etc.

As for Desiderius Erasmus; well he's just another papist, so what do you expect? The Truth? I don't think so, in fact, I know so!!"

In addition to the above:

Ah, but I have proved it and he knows it and that is why in true Bible intellectual form he explains away the crucial evidence of the flawed addition of 1 John 5:7 by saying "I need not utilize 1 John 5:7 with regards to providing evidence for the Trinity." Here, in is his obtuse arrogance, he thinks he can do what his Roman Catholic friends failed to do, i.e. prove the trinity lie without 1 John 5:7 - this is going to be interesting. Especially when this tampering with Holy Scripture says everything we need to know; if the trinity is so clearly seen in the Holy Scriptures why did the papist illegitimates add this verse? Easy, because it isn't clearly seen from other scriptures (except for mastermind of course) and therefore has to be conjoured up by men of religion. Furthermore, the trinity deity is pagan and is of men and men added it to Holy Scripture. We should not be surprised by this either, for all Roman Catholic festivals are pagan, including Christmas and Easter, all of them.

"You see there are truths in the bible that are explicitly taught and those that are implicitly taught. Nowhere is the bible does it say that the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith for the people of God yet I can see by your reverence for scripture that you would affirm this statement since we know that the scriptures are Inspired of God (2 Tim 3:16) and to read the Word is to hear God's very voice (Matt. 22:31). "

"Implications are all very fine if they are Spiritually discerned and applied and not intellectually or theologically reasoned and applied, and the latter is what causes all the problems - modern Bible translations being a good example, including the trinity lie. Even Mr Strong in his wonderful concordance implies several errors. When men, in their arrogance, think they can think for God is when the troubles begin - The NIV being the best example of this. Only those who are Born Again - Sons of God are qualified to explain The Word of God. There is, no infallible rule of faith. First of all we under Grace and there are no rules so how 'rules' apply to faith I have no idea, it certainly isn't Biblical. The Word of God is infallible it just needs finding amongst all the blasphemous papist lies that have been inserted in it and modern translations only make it worse."

2 Tim 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

I have included verse 17 to explain that, unfortunately for Mr McGrath, he is not a man of God but a man of theology, Bible intellectualism and religion.

"It seems from your post to Mr. Beckman (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you are firmly opposed to monotheism as well and you believe that you proved this from the bible. I have yet to see a substantiation explicitly stating that there are numerous gods in the scripture. This is what is called polytheism (the belief in many gods) yet is this biblical truth? This is the same belief that is held by Mormons and most pagan tribal gods in the world hence are these pagan tribal people who believe in these gods saved? From my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong but does not The bible affirms monotheism?"

"For the reasons explained: If God is one then The Jews and The Islamics are saved; they have to be, for their devoutness and commitment cannot be questioned especially The Jews who are also part of physical Israel. You see this is where theologians make a mockery of the Word of God, they know The Godhead is two for their duality cannot be denied. There is The Father God and Jesus God and The Holy Spirit is their power. I have not said there are many gods, in fact my Godhead has less Gods than yours with three. Polytheism is many gods and you know it and two is not many. In my experience cults frequently have more Truth than mainstream Christianity. Herbert W Armstrong (the Worldwide Church of God) most certunfortunatelyt unfortunatley he was a blaspheming Grace killer and a Galatianist or Judaiser."

Here again, we see his "correct me if I am wrong" nonsense - all meaningless vanity! Really he is not as clever as I thought either because he cannot link monotheism with the trinity. If we are against the trinity, by default we must be against monotheism - 3 in 1 and 1 in 3, why is he asking the question?

"I have yet to see a substantiation explicitly stating that there are numerous gods in the scripture."

Here yet again he has not understood Deut 6:4. God = Elohim = Plural, not God = Eloha = Single or one. God is not one - period. Notice though that revealing little word 'see'; he says "I have yet to see" and herein lies the problem - he can't see because he is Spiritually blind.

This is what is called polytheism (the belief in many gods) yet is this biblical truth?

Poly means 'many' and two is not many and three is more than two anyway, so we'll treat his Pharisaical gnat straining with the contempt it deserves.

The Holy Scriptures...

....which he doesn't understand.

"I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God (Isaiah 44:6)."

It's that word again, God in this verse is Elohim (Plural) and one of the members of the Godhead is speaking. Notice too what this viper has done here, he has only quoted half the verse so let's get the whole verse in print for all to see:

Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Now there they are, as plain as plain can be, the two beings of the Godhead - (1) The LORD (Eternal) the King of Israel and (2) His Redeemer the Lord of Hosts, but no Holy Spirit. Now we should read this verse as one of them speaking for both of them, furthermore the word 'me' should not be there at all as there is no Hebrew word for 'me'. The word 'me' has been added by mono/trinity believing translators. So there you have it, The Duality of the Godhead. In fact I am going to rewrite this verse as it should be written, just for Mr McGrath:

"Thus Saith the Lord (Eternal) the King of Israel and the Redeemer the Lord of Hosts; I am the first and I am the last and besides, there is no Godhead (Elohim)"

Notice, that the word Elohim is used again to describe God - Elohim = plural and of course it has to be plural because they are two beings.

Apart from the above, where is The Holy Spirit in this verse? The Godhead are speaking about themselves, about who they are, about how long they have existed and about how there is no other like them nor above them, so why is the Holy Spirit not mentioned? Now, how many more verses is he going to try to find to support his conjouring trick 'cos this one won't help him?

"We know that an idol is nothing al all in the world and that there is not God but one (1 Corinthians 8:4)You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe me And understand that I am He. Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me. (Isaiah 43:10)." We also read that all other gods are actually false gods (1 Cor. 8:4-6).

1 Cor 8:4-6 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

I will again quote the Scriptures that follow in order to get the true meaning of this passage. The word 'God' in verse 4 in the Greek is 'theos' which can mean deity or deities (plural), and this word has many similarities with Elohim in the Hebrew in its plural meaning. Now we must remember that God does not change so verse 4 is therefore referring to a Godhead, not a singular god and this is then supported by verse 6 where it says there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ and that makes two, unless my maths are failing me. I will also save him the trouble of picking up on the punctuation in verse 6 and the word 'but' for these were added by translators who were also, like Mr McGrath, still believing papist deceptions. The KJV is far from perfect as an English translation, because of the papist Vulgate it was translated from, but it is by far the best we've got.

"We do read although that the Father is God 2 Peter 1:1, the Son is God (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5). Hence if we are to be consistent, we must conclude that there is only one God and there are three persons with thee different functions that are Jehovah."

Now he's jumping about all over the place with Scriptures here and Scriptures there, but all to no avail, for none of them will prove the trinity - it's impossible - it's a lie and God's Word is The Truth. When we read it like that we then understand what a blasphemy the trinity is.

OK, 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"

I see Two Beings - The Father God and our Saviour Jesus Christ - where is The Holy Spirit? For The Holy Spirit to be included here it has to be assumed or conjoured up - a fabrication.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Again, Two Beings who were together before anything was created. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned. Nowhere does it say they were two in one, nor three in one or one in three. The trinity is a lie.

Acts 5 I dealt with in my answer to Beckman and I am not repeating it here.

"Here is a question for you: If The Holy Spirit is a personage of a trintity why does Paul not greet the churches in 'his' name? He only ever uses the names of the Father and The Son."

"Firstly, Mr. Crosby, before I address your question, let me first show you from the bible that the Holy Spirit is an actual personage and then I will address your question. Essentially, we must begin by asking, how do we identify, in literature, a person? Fundamentally there are marks of personhood in writing that identifies someone as a person. For instance if I was to say “He is mowing the lawn outside”, we can determine that the action of mowing is done by “he” hence “he” must be a person. The Holy Spirit is identified as “he” by the Lord Jesus."


Now what exactly, is he doing and saying here? First of all, he still very cock-sure of himself isn't he with his "firstly's" and his "essentially's"? What do they say - "pride before a fall" or something like that - how about pompous? Well we'll see, won't we? The word 'he' can easily be translated 'it' from the Greek and there are some verses where vulgar Vulgate translators slipped up with their tampering of Holy Scripture.

1Peter1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."

John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him."

John 3:7-8 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

In this story of Nicodemus coming to The Lord and quizzing Him about being Born Again, nowhere in this account does The Lord tell Nicodemus that The Holy Spirit is a person. He likens it to the wind and the Greek word for wind is one and the same word for Spirit - Pnuema - a breath of air.

John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."

Notice the word 'him' here. If we look in Strong's what do we find? Here, I will show you, word for word: autos - ow-tos' From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind;

This is primarily what 'him' means here for The Holy Spirit is a wind and this is what Jesus Christ told Nicodemus. So people that say The Holy Spirit is a person are literally calling The Lord a liar.

The word 'Comforter' means intercessor; consoler; advocate. Now these words are all titles of Jesus Christ, not The Holy Spirit.

1John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"

Isaiah 59:16 "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him."

2 Cor 1:5-6 "For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ. 6 And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation."

Jesus Christ is the Comforter not The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the means by which Jesus Christ comforts us and this is confirmed in:

John 14:17-18 "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."

Jesus Christ is The Truth and the Spirit is of Truth or of Christ. He was telling his disciples that the world could not receive Him because they did not see Him for who He was, (eg when He stood before Pilate) nor knew Him, but He dwelt with them for three and a half years and He would be in them via His Spirit in the future. Hence He says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." Jesus Christ is the Comforter!!

"“but the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you (John 14:26)—“ 7"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. (John 15:7-15)"

Ah yes, and true to Bible intellectual form the blasphemous modern translations get an airing with The Comforter now called the 'helper' - not very flattering nor respectful for a personage of a trinity God is it!? In fact it would be more in keeping with The Truth that The Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ's Helper, for it is through the help of The Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ works. I will now post the proper translation, so there is no confusion caused by the use of works of The Devil - modern translations.

Again his snake in the grass tactics are shown up for what they are as he leaves out the crucial first half of John 15 so I will print it here:

John 15:1-7 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."

Seven verses that speak of Jesus Christ abiding in us and us in Him - how? Through the the power of The Holy Spirit. We are not abiding in The Holy Spirit we are abiding in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is His Spirit that enables us to abide in Him. Even in the opening verse we have mentioned Jesus Christ as The Vine and The Father as The Husbandman - no Holy Spirit. Now if The Holy Spirit were a person do you think 'he' would be left out of all the dialogue on this 'gardening and pruning,' and have no input on the subject?

For a house to receive electricity the wiring loom or the 'first fix' as we call it here in the UK has to be installed first, once that is in place a house can then be connected to the mains power supplier, and so it is with The Holy Spirit. For The power supplier - Jesus Christ to be in communication with us, His Brothers, his power infrastructure - The Holy Spirit must be installed first. I cannot use a better analogy to put it in a more simple way. "The simplicity that is in Christ."

To be continued

posted by yes2truth aka Charles Crosby @ 6:59 pm

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home