Theology is Bunk!

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

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