PART 3 RESPONSES TO JESUS CHRSIT IS NOT GOD BY JOY PENROSE-DAVIS

Compiled by Derrick Gillespie Since publishing my Part 2 response (see it here) to the above authors counterarguments, she has been working overtime to try and rescue an already lost cause. Her part 2 responses (see them here or here) have descended into vitriol and toxicity, but the substance of her arguments remains refuted, despite her admirable efforts at polemics. Here now is part 3 of my ongoing defense against her highly misguided book and subsequent rebuttals to my responses. HERE IS THE FIRST FALSEHOOD IN HER SECOND RESPONSE TO ME: 1. JOY DAVIS SAID: "Mr. Gillespie also accuses me of " filthy lucre " (greed for money) (1 Pet. 5:2) because my books are on the market for sale." WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID: "*My ministry is not for "filthy lucre" (1 Peter 5:2), neither is it aimed at simply defending intellectual property and or *my ego, as connected to *my thesis or teaching, but I will spare no effort to lift up and honor the Son even as I honor the Father, because, as Jesus himself said in John 5:23, all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." THE TRUTH? NOWHERE DID I EVEN CALL JOY PENROSE-DAVIS' NAME IN THE ABOVE QUOTED STATEMENT, OR REFER TO HER, OR ACCUSE HER OF GREED IN PART 2 OF REVIEW. I am a writer and an apologist myself, with a whole lot of "intellectual property" in the public domain, and I myself have to guard against ego, and a desire to spread the gospel for profit. I spoke about what I myself have to guard against, and yet Joy Davis says I was ACCUSING her. How does she really read, and what does she understand an ACCUSATION to be? I was simply referring to *MY ministry, and focusing on *MY motive for engaging in a defense of *MY teaching and *MY written presentations. What Joy Davis does is to ASSUME I was implying something about her, and then declares I ACCUSED her of something she ASSUMES. I am smiling here! Charging me with doing something that only exists in her mind by way of an ASSUMPTION!!! Hmmmmm. Joy Davis is so emotionally driven at times that sometimes it blinds her to the need to discuss issues dispassionately. Want to see instances of how Joy Davis is soooo emotionally driven, and goes overboard with being emotional and being unable to be dispassionate ? Watch her on Jamaican TV again here (noting too how she fails to respond correctly to certain key issues raised):

http://televisionjamaica.com/Programmes/ReligiousHardtalk.aspx/Videos/12025 HERE EVIDENCED IS THE TOXICITY AND UNCHRISTAIN-LIKE TONE OF HER LATEST RESPONSE:

2. Joy Penrose-Davis is so emotional at times that she fails to recognize the proper rules of intellectual engagement. In polemics and an objective debate, one SHOULD engage issues; not attack the person and impute motive or color character simply because of being disagreed with on an issue. Clearly she cannot dispassionately debate an issue without sitting in judgment on character or becoming personal. Part 2 of her response is so filled with PERSONAL ATTACKS it is quite revealing. Notice examples below all quoting how she attacks my person simply for disagreeing with her thesis: "So blatant is Mr. Gillespies dishonesty" "Such an intent is designed to mislead and deceive the reader. This is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY and DECEPTION in their HIGHEST FORM." "Mr. Gillespie is not only guilty of distorting my words but he is downright dishonest and an ARCH-DECEIVER." "If Mr. Gillespie is confident in his opposition to my work then there is certainly no need for him to fabricate LIES. But I guess unless he does, he has nothing to oppose." "I CHALLENGE Mr. Gillespie to prove that he is not a LIAR" " These comments are so outrageous that I will not even attempt to defend them. They reflect the MALICIOUSNESS of Mr. Gillespie and the extent to which will go to MISLEAD and DECEIVE others." "Mr. Gillespies review has shown that he is a MASTER DECEIVER..." A DISPASSIONATE DEBATER AND OBJECTIVE POLEMICIST WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR OPPONENT CAN MISUNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWPOINT, MIGHT MISREAD A STATEMENT, OR WILL JUST SIMPLY USE THE OPPOSITIONAL LANGUAGE OF DEBATE WITHOUT BEING DELIBERATELY DISHONEST, WITHOUT DELIBERATELY FABRICATING LIES, WITHOUT INTENDING TO MISREPRESENT YOUR STATEMENTS, OR WITHOUT BEING MALICIOUS. BUT JOY DAVIS SITS IN JUDGMENT ON THE OPPONENT'S CHARACTER SIMPLY BECAUSE HER VIEW IS AGGRESSIVELY DISAGREED WITH. HOW SAD! Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. HERE EVIDENCED IS HER SOMETIMES MISQUOTING ME:

3. JOY DAVIS SAID: "Mr. Gillespie... essentially claimed me to be a false prophet and an antiChrist" WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID: " Any teaching which teaches that Jesus, despite being Gods only begotten Son, is not "God" in nature *see Heb. 1:8; Is. 9:6], is not divine, and has no divinity whatsoever, is anti-Christ in spirit because it denies the Father being a real Father in the TRUE sense, and denies that Jesus is a real Son in the true sense!! ....That is heresy, the spirit of antiChrist, and by it the very teaching of Gods image in man is being obliterated." TRUTH BE TOLD? I REFERRED TO HER *TEACHING AS "ANTI-CHRIST IN SPIRIT" AND I NOWHERE CALLED HER A "FALSE PROPHET". BUT HER TEACHING STANDS CONDEMNED IN MY BOOK; NOT HER AS A PERSON!! IT IS GOD'S ROLE TO JUDGE HER; NOT ME. I WONT SIT IN JUDGMENT ON HER AS SHE DOES ME AND MY CHARACTER, BY ACCUSING ME OF BEING "DISHONEST", AN "ARCH DECEIVER", AND THE LIKE. I WILL ONLY JUDGE HER TEACHING BY THE WORD; NOT HER CHARACTER!! BIG DIFFERENCE! NOTICE HOW RESPECTFUL I WAS TO HER WHEN I SAID IN MY FIRST REVIEW OF HER WORK: "I still defend the authors right to freedom of conscience, and I also protect her right to disseminate her views through this newly published book. But I am appealing to her to be careful she does not become the means by which the Archenemy or chief Anti-Christ, the Devil himself, dishonors Jesus true nature and rightful place of honor because of that nature, even as, ironically, she tries to protect the supreme status of the Father of all. Balancing the truths of the Bible is a matter that should not be taken lightly, since all truths (like the commandments of God) are interconnected, and a denial of one is ultimately a denial of all. James 2:10-12." IS THE ABOVE REFLECTIVE OF THE "MALICIOUSNESS" SHE ACCUSES ME OF? ONE WONDERS!!

GLARING CONTRADICTIONS IN JOY DAVIS' PART 2 "RESPONSE" TO MY PART 2 "REVIEW" OF HER BOOK: If Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis had thought that by her barrage of personal attacks against my person that this approach would discourage me from constantly reviewing her thesis and counterarguments, or I would let her off the hook for presenting error, I guess she has another thing coming. The more she endeavors to argue her way out of an already faulty thesis, is the more her arguments gets complicated and glaringly contradictory. She may think that her counterarguments contain truth, but that is a shortsighted view which may only convince herself, or the few Muslims here and there who are her main supporters its seems these days

on the internet (and maybe a few off-the-wall theologians here and there, and yes, maybe the highly misguided cult, the Watchtower and its Jehovah's Witnesses). I have no time to get into all the intricacies of the mixed-up and complicated counterarguments Joy Penrose-Davis seek to submit to make it seem her thesis is Biblical or truthful, but I will highlight some of the MOST GLARING CONTRADICTIONS AND FAULTY ARGUMENTS she has presented, to make the point that she is clearly "blind leading the blind". On page 6 of her part 2 response to me review (http://www.joypenrosedavis.com/part-2response-to-derrick-gillespies-review.html), she again makes this GLARINGLY CONTRADICTORY POINT TO A CERTAIN EXPLANATION IN HER BOOK: "We understand, therefore, that though God is the only Savior [Isaiah. 43:11], he may empower others to save you. God, however, will never empower another to be God." Now, to her mind this statement might be quite 'innocent' or free from fault, yet it is so riddled with contradictions to her own book, as well as filled with oversights on her part. What do I mean? Well, let me break it down: a] Notice her above statement that "God will NEVER empower another to be God" GLARINGLY CONTRADICTING her faulty explanation on pages 187-188 of her book that, as a reward for Jesus role in the salvation plan, the Father will literally step aside for a thousand years, conferring his title of God and Everlasting Father on Jesus, and allow him to temporarily *i.e. for a thousand years+ receive universal worship while bearing those titles that she contends is reserved only for the Father of Jesus. This would be the Father "empowering" Jesus to be "God" AS A SHAM (!!), since (as she argues) he is only a creature!! I repeat (as I said before) that this is a rather shocking self-contradiction by this author, and an amazing and brazen heresy straight from the pit of hell! I cannot but describe it and condemn it in the strongest words humanly possible! In her part 2 response she skirted and danced around this CONTRADICTION I pointed to in her book, despite her unfounded charge that I am unable to identify a contradiction or a contradictory statement at any time whatsoever (how laughable). What she did was to totally fail to respond to the veracity of this GLARING CONTRADICTION in her book by uttering these rather unhelpful/lame words: "These comments are so outrageous that I will not even attempt to defend them." Hmmm. I thought her part 2 response was intending to do precisely that...that OF DEFENDING AGAINST MY SO-CALLED "OUTRAGEOUS" AND "CONFUSED" CHARGES. But a careful reader will recognize rather quickly why she totally refused or failed to respond to (and try to refute) the following implications inherent in her above described teachings about Jesus in the millennium. She cant!! Period! It is not an "outrageous" charge, since it is the natural implication resulting from her teaching about Jesus being a CREATURE (!!) but (according to

her) he fulfilling the Isaiah 9:6 prophecy of being called "the Mighty God" and "the Everlasting Father" during THE MILLENNIUM, and being "UNIVERSALLY WORSHIPED" as the Father would be (but only "temporarily"). So again I submit that *BY IMPLICATION this is what her book would be INDIRECTLY teaching: (i) She WOULD BE TEACHING that for a thousand years the Father will allow idolatry to be practiced by all of his creation, i.e. if Jesus really is not God as the Father himself already addresses him in Heb. 1:8 (ii) She WOULD BE TEACHING that for a thousand years the entire creation will be allowed to break the first two of the Ten Commandments, as a means of rewarding a created being (according to Mrs. Penrose-Davis) (iii) She WOULD BE TEACHING that for a thousand years God the Father will take a vacation from being King Eternal and allow his created son to be a 'figure head' of divinity on his throne, but only as a sham, since he really would not have been, by true nature, what he is being proclaimed to be (iv) She WOULD BE TEACHING that for a thousand years the entire created universe will reject the Jewish culture inspired by God Himself as it concerns names, and the names accorded to Jesus will not be true names related to his true nature, but will be contrived names conferred on a creature who would not normally be so deserving. All I can do here, dear reader, is pray once again for Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis and hope that the scales will fall from her eyes, and she will repent of this awful LIE (!!) being propagated INDIRECTLY in her book, and recant this Satanic teaching concocted by no other than Lucifer himself. Father, forgive her for she knows not what she does!

b] In addition, by admitting that Jesus is called "the Savior of the world" by the Bible despite the same Bible allows only God to "the Savior" of the world (Is. 43:11) this not only shows up the inherent faults in her argumentation, but shows up her work as plagued with glaring oversights. First, she has plainly failed to see that Jesus is not just called "a savior" or one of many "saviors" (as she lamely tried to argue), but is called "THE Savior of the world" in the ultimate sense, just like the Father; not just "a savior". That makes a whole lot of difference than Joy Penrose-Davis is able to recognize! I would love her to show the many so called "saviors" being called "THE Savior" and "THE Redeemer" as Jesus is, with the definite article.

In addition, by her arguing that --"Anybody who saves you (from any situation) has been empowered by God to do so. In such instances, the person whom Godsends to save you now becomes your savior. This is the case with Jesus. Jesus became our savior because God the Father sent him and empowered him for that purpose" -- she has betrayed her own

inconsistency in another regard. How? Because by showing that God the Father can invest another, His Son, with power to do on his behalf what he is credited for, and that this Medium (his Son) can be called his same title of "the Savior" for instance, it proves BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that JESUS can be called "the Creator" just like the Father (Heb. 1:2,3, 8-12; John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:16,17), and is properly called "God" just like the Father, since the Father himself calls Jesus "God" and attributes the creation to Jesus in Heb. 1:8-12 (calling it the work of his/Jesus "hands"), simply because only someone properly called "God" can CREATE the entire universe on behalf of the Father, and since only divinity can create the universe!! This is the same truth with Jesus being: -"the mighty God" (Is. 9:6), and "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28,29) -our Redeemer -our final Judge (2 Cor. 5:10) -our King of kings (Rev. 17:14) -our one Lord (1 Cor. 8:6) -the first and last (Rev. 2:8) etc., despite the Father is referred to as the only Redeemer, only Savior, "First and last", final Judge "himself" (Psalm 50:6), "Lord alone" (Neh. 9:6), only King of kings or Potentate (1 Tim 6:15), only God, et al. Joy Pen-rose-Davis can dance around these truths all she wants, but they will stand forever sure, and will be accepted by God's true sheep!!

GLARING CONTRACTIONS (CONTINUED): Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis accuses me of twisting her words deliberately and dishonestly with an aim to deceive, but ironically she is guilty of also misrepresentation my words, but I will NOT sit in judgment on her motive (i.e. declaring it to be sinister in intent and dishonest in operation); since God commands us not to judge character. I will simply be nailing it down to a misreading on her part, or lack of full research, insight, or just plain ignorance!!

On pages 2-3 of her part 2 response she butchered and caricatured what I said about Jesus remaining human, with the hope it would make nonsense of what I said, but that simply demonstrates her own lack of insight and plain ignorance. In her bid to belittle and make fun of my words she said:

"Is Jesus still flesh and blood today? Does he still experience hunger and thirst? Does he still have the need to sleep? Does death still have dominion over him? Can he still die? If, as according to Mr. Gillespie, Jesus has not given up his humanity, then he is still as he was on earth fully human. He is still today in heaven, in a vile corruptible human body, subject to suffering, pain, death and decay. Such a view, however, is not supported by the scriptures. It is common knowledge that a flesh and blood body cannot live in heaven (1 Cor.15:50). All the inhabitants of heaven are spirit beings. Every Bible scholar knows this and even non-Bible scholars do, but clearly, Mr. Gillespie is lacking in this knowledge. I guess one cannot fault him for not knowing."

Well, Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis has had her fun, and has made nonsense of the Word, but its time for the errors in her response to be laid bare. Here are the errors inherent in the above: a] She claims because Jesus no longer is subject to hunger, thirst, death, decay, etc., then he is no longer human. Well the truth is, Jesus "the man" in heaven today (Acts 17:30, 31; 1Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5) is the "FIRST FRUITS" of those whom will be resurrected as HUMANS (1 Cor. 15:20-23; Acts 26:23), which means he is now the first or best SAMPLE of what resurrected HUMANS will be like in Paradise, since he will transform humans to be like his own body (Phill. 3:20, 21). Resurrected humans will NOT become specie, but will remain HUMANS, but who are transformed in body to no longer be subject to death or decay. Thus, like Jesus today, resurrected HUMANS in Paradise will NOT have a "vile, corruptible body", i.e. subject to death and decay, but will have a BETTER HUMAN BODY, and be immortal and free from the PRESENCE of pain, and death, and suffering!! So, while it is true Eph. 5:30 did not use the expression "of his [Jesus] flesh and of his bones", yet it is NOT an incorrect insert by translators, since Jesus made plain he rose that way, i.e. with a glorified or incorruptible body of flesh and bones: "Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." That's PLAIN!! And remember, this was after Jesus was ALREADY resurrected, and was now able to even walk through walls like a spirit can, or appear and disappear at will. Thus he remained human (but glorified), and hence why he is still REPEATEDLY called a "man" by the Bible since his resurrection...unless Mrs. Joy Davis would want make Jesus into a liar!! AT NO TIME DID THE BIBLE SAY JESUS CEASED FROM HAVING A BODY OF FLESH AND BONES, OR BEING MAN AS WE ARE (except we are not yet glorified with an incorruptible BODY)!! Jesus returning to (or being restored with) his glory that he had with the Father before (John 17:5), this had to do with being restored with "all power", heavenly authority, and external brightness connected with his heavenly being (Matt. 28:18; Rev. 1:12-18), since it was only a being with "all power' that could initially create and sustain the entire universe on behalf of his Father (Heb. 1:2,3, 8-12), or be "Kings of kings" (i.e. sovereign) like the Father, even ruling on his own throne (Rev 17:14; Rev. 3:21), or be our future Judge on his behalf (John 5:22; 2 Cor. 5:10) and

Giver of all rewards on his behalf (Rev. 22:12)! When Jesus came to earth he had given that all up temporarily!! b] Mrs. Davis argues that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit heaven, since, according to her, all the inhabitants of heaven are spirit beings. This is a statement that is only partially correct. This is a misunderstanding of the Bible she quotes, and a misapplication of its teachings. Humans will live forever in Paradise (not in heaven but) ON THE *EARTH (Rev. 5:10; Dan. 7:27), and they will plant gardens, eat food, drink wine, build homes, and do things humans normally do, yet with a transformed body (not a vaporized spirit one) that will shine like the sun (Dan. 12:3; Matt. 13:43). It will be a BODY OF HUMAN "FLESH" that is now made incorruptible!! Proof? Job (the patriarch) expected his body to be his very same body of flesh BUT TRANSFORMED or made "incorruptible" (not becoming pure spirit), i.e. it will be resurrected and glorified at the last day when the Redeemer restores Paradise on earth (Job 19:25, 26 with Job. 14:14). Notice, the BODY will be RESURRECTED (i.e. raised) and made "incorruptible (NOT abandoned or vaporized into nothingness) Mrs. Davis is lacking in this knowledge. I guess one cannot fault Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis for not knowing, but here is the PLAIN Biblical proof (emphases supplied): "Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with *MEN [humans], and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his PEOPLE [i.e. humans; not spirits], and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." "Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day UPON THE *EARTH: Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet IN MY *FLESH shall I see God: Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." "Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall ALL *FLESH come to worship before me, saith the LORD." "Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I [God] create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Isa 65:18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her PEOPLE [i.e. humans; not spirits] a joy. Isa 65:19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my PEOPLE [i.e. humans; not spirits] : and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. Isa 65:21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. Isa 65:22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my PEOPLE [i.e. humans; not spirits] , and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands."

Notice the Bible's emphasis on "FLESH" and "PEOPLE" [humans] in Paradise...unless (again) Mrs. Davis rejects these portions of Scripture? In addition 1 Cor.15 was discussing the SPIRITUAL BODIES or heavenly/celestial bodies (emphasis on SPIRITUAL) the saints or saved HUMANS will be equipped or raised with (illustrated with the seed planted, that germinates as a transformed but tangible substance as before); it wasnt discussing NOT the nature of spirits, since Jesus (as the first fruit of those humans raised) was not raised as a spirit (Luke 24:39). Big difference! See 1 Cor. 15:42-44. That is another plain misinterpretation of Scripture in Joy Davis part 2 responses. With the foregoing Biblical truth well established, we must then inquire what does it mean then that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom"? Since the Bible does not contradict itself, though Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis does contradict it (plainly in ignorance), then it is plain "flesh and blood" not inheriting the kingdom is a metaphorical for figurative expression meaning that out present sinful natures, connected with death and decay, and or present sinful state of disobedience cannot enter Paradise, and so our sinful natures must be transformed, just as our bodies will be transformed, but we will remain HUMANS that are transformed, both in our inner man (in mind), and in our human bodies of FLESH!! Today the Bible speak of Christians already as being in the Spirit and "not in the flesh", even while we remain HUMANS and "in the flesh" (see Romans 8:9 with Gal. 2:20), and only a misguided teacher fails to balance all these truths!! Pity Mrs. Joy Davis fits that bill, despite her protestations to the contrary.

GLARING CONTRADICTIONS (CONTINUED): Hebrews 1:8 is the most devastating Scripture, coupled with Isaiah 9:6, which damages beyond repair the thesis of Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis!! (CEV) But God says about his Son, "You are God [PRESENT TENSE; NOT 'YOU WILL BE CALLED' "GOD", BUT YOU ARE], and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power brings about justice Hebrews 1:8 (KJV) Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. This is perfectly corroborated by Isaiah 9:6 which prophesied what Jesus will RIGHTFULLY BE CALLED. Hebrews 1:8 simply fulfills who will be among those RIGHTFULLY calling Jesus "God" (i.e. the Father Himself): (KJV) Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,

The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. We already saw how Mrs. Davis poorly handled Isaiah 9:6 (inventing a doctrine about Jesus in the future being called "God" in the millennium; I never saw it before being taught by any other), and we already saw how she skirted around my polemic against her faulty explanations about Jesus being given "universal worship" while called "God", and the inherent implication. But she will NOT be let off that easily with these BLATANT ERRORS!! Her treatment of Hebrews 1:8 is another PLAIN example of her lame attempts at salvaging an already destroyed thesis. On page 8 of her response (http://www.joypenrosedavis.com/part-2-response-to-derrickgillespies-review.html) she lamely tries to argue for an already lost case, by expressing (without authoritative proof or any overwhelming evidence whatsoever) that Heb. 1:8 is a REPEATED mistranslation in the very many translations that it appears. Well, her simply saying so does NOT MAKE IT SO!! Where is her proof? She is hardly expert at Greek, neither can she present REPEATED testimony of several Greek experts in the majority to counter what Heb. 1:8 says, and so the truth stands sure, whether she can handle it or not! Secondly, when one reads the early Christian writers of the first two or three centuries (apologists), as they quoted the earliest Greek manuscripts, as expressing what was originally written by Paul, they all quoted Hebrews 1:8 as expressing exactly what it says today in almost every translation: "CEV) But God says about his Son, "You are God [PRESENT TENSE; NOT 'YOU WILL BE CALLED' "GOD", BUT YOU ARE], and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power brings about justice Hebrews 1:8 (KJV) Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. These two 'witnesses' of, first, the overwhelming majority of translations, and, second, the testimony of the earliest Greek speaking Christian writers who quoted Heb. 1:8 as it still reads today, establishes the truth!! In Jesus own words "a truth is established" by "two or more witnesses". Fight that reality all you want Mrs. Davis! Makes not one bit of difference to me! Only that I must defend the real truth on behalf of the innocent people your book will mislead! With no overwhelming authoritative sources to counter this insurmountable truth of Heb. 1:8 (except the differing minority reading/rendering in a few translations; miniscule in number), what does Mrs. Davis then resort to? Her own faulty reasoning; trying to lamely contend that Heb. 1:9 would make no sense whatsoever if Heb. 1:8 had the Father calling Jesus "God" (i.e. divine like himself). Thus, not even the Bible is safe from Mrs. Davis fallible reasoning, and so she will DENY even what it PLAINLY says, or try to explain it away, all in a bid to make her book and her faulty viewpoint supreme; NOT the other way around.

But if she had recognized that Jesus remained HUMAN, the Christ, Our Elder Brother, "the First Fruits of those who slept" (only now glorified), then she would have no problem seeing how Jesus could be called "God" by his Father (a recognition of his FULL divine nature; Col. 2:9), while at the same time the Father is also Jesus' God (see John 20:17) simply because, like His HUMAN brothers, whom he is their supreme Model or Example (see Heb. 2:11-16) the Father has *BECOME his God (not the other way around) since he became our Elder brother, THE SECOND ADAM!. The Father never became human, or BECAME our Elder brother, and has no one above him, and so it is nonsensical for Mrs. Davis to ask : "Is Jesus the Fathers God? Does the Father worship Jesus as His God? If Jesus God like the Father, shouldnt Jesus be the Fathers God as the Father is Jesus God?" That is being simpleminded with the Word, and sounds like a newborn babe needing milk. The Word is ready to teach and give her all the "milk" she needs, but alas, Joy Davis continues to "kick against the pricks" simply because she DOES NOT UNDERSTAND all the truths, to be able to balance them properly. How sad! EVIDENCE OF HER TWISTING MY WORDS: While accusing me of twisting her words, Mrs Davis is often guilty of the same charge; clearly misreading my context, or ignoring (maybe genuinely missing) the use of certain words, and the intent and meaning they convey. Without going into all the instances (since that is quite unnecessary), let me point to a GLARING example, and indicate its implications:

On page 7 of her response she sought to argue against and accuse me of something I never even said. Here is her statement:

" Let me categorically state that nowhere in my book do I argue that, if we worship him as God when he is not (but just a creature like ourselves) then we are guilty of idol worship and the breaking of the first two of the Ten Commandments , as stated by Mr. Gillespie. This is a BOLDFACE LIE! The book simply aims to show from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is not God or Gods co-equal, but holds absolutely no discussion on whether worshiping Jesus Christ is idol worship and the breaking of the first two of the Ten Commandments and "hence is SIN ! I CHALLENGE Mr. Gillespie to prove that he is not a LIAR by giving the Chapter and the page where this is written!" Thing is, I never said she said so (and so I don't have to prove myself not a liar; only how emotional Mrs. Davis can be and how she misreads sometimes). I made plain what I think she WOULD say (a matter she even quoted directly between pages 5-6 of her part 2 responses). I said in part:

"...in her recent response to part 1 of my review of her book she closes that response with the pregnant question: If Jesus Christ is not God and we worship him as God, could that be considered idolatry? Clearly she *WOULD answer in the affirmative"

Notice I NEVER said she did answer, but implied what she WOULD. To DENY that she would answer in the affirmative might just be dishonesty on her part, since it is plain that if, as she argues "Jesus Christ is NOT God", and so we worship him AS GOD (!!) then that would be plain idolatry, and that WOULD certainly be breaking the first two of the Ten Commandments. There is no other reality allowed in her teaching. That's the PLAIN implication of her teaching that Jesus Christ is not God!! Yet she turns around to indicate Jesus would receive the titles of "the mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" and "universally worshiped" for 1000 years while BEING CALLED THAT, DESPITE HE IS NOT? Oh dear!!

She admits in her book that Jesus deserves a certain level of honor as God's Son and as the Christ, but not as God (!!). So why should it bother her if I make plain what her answer WOULD logically be to someone worshiping Jesus *AS GOD, if he really wasn't? One wonders what she really is arguing against, and what she is charging me with when she spoke of me telling a "BOLDFACE LIE"!! The only boldface lie I see would be if she denies that this is what her natural answer WOULD be to someone worshiping Jesus *AS GOD (if he isn't, as she argues).... despite she never stated it (and I never said she did either)!!

But one can realize that probably deep in her spirit she knows that her explanation of Is. 9:6 AUTOMATICALLY results in that being the result in her own faulty teaching, i.e. on its so-called "fulfillment" in the millennium (i.e. followed to its logical conclusion), so she sets up a whole smokescreen to 'escape' that fact, yet this teaching is like the emperor in no clothes; even while thinking he is so fully clothed in invisible garments of correctness he is as naked as ever.

FOR EMPHASIS LET ME REPEAT WHAT I SAID, AND THE PLAIN TRUTH THAT BOTHER'S HER TEACHING WILL BE MADE PLAIN [inserts added for clarity]: The most shocking of all the self-contradictions by Mrs. Penrose-Davis in her book has to do with worship that she postulates that will be ascribed to Jesus during the millennium. The very premise of her book title makes it plain that in her view Jesus Christ is not God, and in fact she emphasizes right throughout the book that Jesus has no divinity whatsoever (not even in terms of inherited nature from the Father), and so [*Insert -SHE TEACHES BY IMPLICATION THAT ] if we worship him as God when he is not (but is just a creature like

ourselves, as she argues) then we are [i.e. WOULD be] guilty of idol worship and the breaking of the first two of the Ten Commandments."

This is the BIGGEST BLOW to her own thesis, i.e. in her trying to get around Isaiah 9:6, but in doing so she invents a doctrine which lands her in a whole heap of trouble with the thought of God allowing a so-called "creature" (Jesus) to be "universally worshiped" for 1000 years (as a reward), while being called "God" and "Everlasting Father" (like himself), when he truly is NOT (as the whole premise of her book makes plain). This "ACHILLES HEEL" of her thesis she will have to live with (a matter I will continue to highlight without fear or favor), and it will be the biggest heresy she will one day have to repent of (mark my words!!), or it may just be her own spiritual downfall if she does not let it go!! I pray she will let good sense prevail...eventually!

MRS. JOY PENROSE-DAVIS ARGUING AGAINST HEBREWS 1:3: I SAID WAS SIMPLY THIS: "Be ever mindful readers that no one (at least not me) is asking Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis to change the truth that the Father is the one true God. That remains undisturbed as a truth (see John 17:3; 1 Cor.8:6). What she is being asked to revisit, and reconsider, is the nature of Jesus; he being the "express image" of the Fathers person/being, in ALL HIS FULNESS of the divine nature or Godhead (see again Heb. 1:3: Col. 2:9). This inescapable reality operates in principle just as any copy of her 'controversial' book manuscript (the 'one true copy') that she has in her office at home; the original that remains unseen to the public. The copy I read (and is here critiquing) is the express image of the one same booknothing less in nature. She has written just one book (I repeat just one book); not many because of the several copies involved; just in the same way there remains one God (not two or three), despite Jesus is his express image. It is so plain! Glory to his name! - *page 11 of my document But here now is Mrs. Davis quoting my statement with an ADDED/FOREIGN INSERT (marked at beginning and end with asterisks ***): "....This inescapable reality acts in principle just as any copy of her 'controversial' book manuscript (the 'one true copy') that she has in her office at home; the original that remains unseen. The copy I read (and is here critiquing) is the express image of the one same booknothing less in nature. She has written just one book; not many because of the copies involved; just in the same way there remains one God, despite Jesus is his express image. **** (My note: Books cannot be compared. A man may reproduce children and though they might be his spitting image, none of them are a duplicate of him. They are all

different in some ways****)" The forgoing INSERT (as noted between the asterisks ****) WERE NEVER written by me (IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS), but were Mrs. Davis' own thoughts (or someone's own addition at her work station). Here is she arguing against my explaining, by way of an illustration, Jesus being called BY THE BIBLE ITSELF the "express image" of God the Father's "PERSON" (Heb. 1:3) : "Mr. Gillespie uses the analogy of copies made from one book manuscript. In doing so, he contends that it is an inescapable reality that they both act on the same principle. The analogy presented by Mr. Gillespie bears no relevance to the subject because there is a fundamental difference between the two. Copies of books are printed by means of mass production, and so each copy is exactly as the original. That is the intent. God, however, does not create beings by means of mass production. Although Jesus (and even humans) are made in Gods image, it should not be taken to mean that as one copy of a book is exactly like its original so too Jesus or mankind is exactly like the Father. When God makes beings, He does not make them as copies of each other. Every being is uniquely made. There are no two beings that are exactly alike (not even identical twins). Neither are Jesus and the Father exactly alike. God does not duplicate beings and neither has He duplicated Himself. Jesus is not a clone of the Father. The Father is One-of-a-kind. There is no other being like Him. Jesus is also one-of-a-kind, but he is incomparable to the Father. The Father is superior to Jesus in every way, just as the Father is superior to us in every way, though we are all created in His image and likeness." My statement, before the ADDED/FOREIGN insert, remains valid. Mrs. Davis seems to think she is arguing against my point, but rather she is arguing against the Bible's own principle! It is the Bible which declares unequivocally about Jesus, unlike any other, as being the "express image" or "exact representation" (not a clone) of another "PERSON"....the Father! God does not duplicate beings, but rather properties which makes beings similar in nature (since all humans, despite unique in themselves, even as differing genders, are still all called Man). Books being copied certainly can be a good illustration of an "exact representation" being made of something, as an "express image". Also, not all books are mass produced when copied. In fact, the very first Bible was painstakingly HAND COPIED (not mass produced), and being a copy it was still called "the Bible" and was/is the Bible in nature, just like the original manuscript (s)....unless Mrs. Davis is going to argue that the Bible today (resulting from the first hand copy) should not be called the Bible simply because it is not the original manuscript, or because it bears some mistakes of copyists!! Each Bible, for instance, is unique as a book/specimen, in itself, but its properties or essence is what is duplicated (compared to the original), just as each human is unique in himself, but his genetic properties, passed on from his parent, makes him FULLY human!! Mass produced or not, an "express image" is an "exact representation" of a prototype or original in its properties; just like the copy I have of her book, which remains the one book in nature or essence.

Applying the principle is simple. NO OTHER BEING IN THE BIBLE WAS SAID TO BE THE "EXPRESS IMAGE" OF ANOTHER "PERSON" LIKE JESUS WAS SAID TO BE of his Father's *PERSON; not even humans being made in God's "image" (i.e. bearing some of his features), or humans having sons borne in their own "image". Yet notice that even humans having sons borne in their own image, that are not an "express image" of themselves, yet those sons are deemed equally Man or humans, or persons with the human nature (even when subject to them as head of families). No wonder Jesus (despite not a "clone" of the Father's person; seeing there are not two "God the Father") he is described by God himself as being "God" or divine by nature (Heb. 1:8), since he, His TRUE Father, is GOD IN PERSON, and Jesus is his "express image" !! Isaiah 9:6 and Heb. 1:8 make it plain, and I don't need Mrs. Joy Davis' book to misinterpret that truth for me!! Finally, I recognize that when Jesus was said in Heb. 1:3 to be the "express image of his [God's] PERSON [or BEING, or substance], two things stand out: a] This was expressing what Jesus was before becoming human, since Hebrews 1 shows the transition of Jesus from what he was, to what he is today. Jesus was the "express [full or exact] image [representation or copy] of God's "hupostasis" (Greek) i.e. his PERSON or BEING or ESSENCE; not just copying his ACTIONS or following his instructions as Mrs. Davis mistakenly explains by lamely saying on page 10 of her response: "This means that Jesus, in representing his Father *does everything expressly or exactly as instructed by Him". This is her lame attempt to escape the real meaning of the Greek in the expression "express image of his PERSON" [i.e. the exact representation of his "substance" or "character" or "person" or "essence"]. I recommend that the reader studies Hebrews 1:2,3 with Strong's Greek lexicon beside them, and note the key words used, and their Greek meanings and definitions in the Strong's Greek lexicon. b] In the same way no two humans are duplicates of each other (i.e. they are not test tube "clones"), yet any two persons of humanity that are compared will be seen to fully bear the nature of humanity or that of Adam, and are called "Man" by nature (even as differing genders or in different statuses), so too Jesus bears the nature of his Father (as any "only begotten Son" would), and hence why His Father acknowledges this truth by *describing Jesus as "God" (despite now a glorified human) in the same Hebrews 1 (i.e. Heb. 1:8); not calling him "God" because Jesus is his God, but describing him as "God" to capture the essence of his true nature. Colossians 2:9 makes plain that in Jesus "DWELLETH [*present tense] all the fulness of the divine nature [Greek, "theotes] BODILY; NOT a paste tense reality that Mrs. Davis lamely tries to use as a counterargument as to why Jesus is deemed as having "the fulness of the Godhead" in him. Jesus presently has a glorified BODY, and in him PRESENTLY is all the fulness of the divine nature (or godhead), simply because Paul used the present tense

"DWELLETH" in Col. 2:9 when he wrote the letter/epistle to the Colossians (i.e. even while Jesus was no longer on the earth). No other human, Jew or Christian, is ever described as having the fulness of the Godhead in him, despite they too can be filled with God's Holy Spirit to do wonderful and miraculous works. No other human can promise and give eternal life like Jesus can, no other human can have prayer directed to them as Jesus was in Acts 7:55-60, and no other human will ever be able to sit on God's own throne as seen in Zech. 6:13 and Rev. 3:21. That says much, and settles the issues for me!! God saying no one else is like him was ALWAYS in the context of comparing himself with the false gods of the heathens that Israel of old saw around them. Yet if God himself says Jesus (his only begotten Son) is God (Isaiah 9:6 and Heb. 1:8), and is his express image (Heb. 1:3), then we take him at his Word, and believe that God know how not to contradict himself!! Clearly Mrs. Davis has denied (see page 9 of her response) that Jesus now sits upon the Father's own throne, in spite of the Scriptures saying it plainly in Zech. 6:13 and Rev. 3:21!! Clearly too Mrs. Davis does not take God seriously when he said he has "GIVEN" to his Son "all power", all he owns (John 16:15), even "life in himself", and that "it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell" [present continuous tense]. One wonders which Heir, or Prince who owns all his father has, as Jesus does (John 16:15), would not RIGHTFULLY exercise all the prerogatives of his royal father, even as "King of kings" or sovereign (see Rev. 17:14). But again I repeat, Mrs. Davis "kicking against the pricks" bothers me none...only that I will continue to oppose her errors as a witness to all who will hear the real truth (a duty I CERTAINLY WILL NEVER RELINQUISH)!!

CONCLUSION: Without engaging all the counterarguments arguments of Mrs. Davis (that is neither necessary, not practical; I have more important things to engage my time), it has been shown, by highlighting the more glaring weaknesses in her part 2 responses, that the superstructure of her thesis has failed. Period! Gods true sheep hears his voice, and accepts ALL of his Word; not just portions, as Mrs. Davis has sought to do!!