Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PART 3- Response to ' Jesus Christ is Not God'

PART 3- Response to ' Jesus Christ is Not God'

Ratings: (0)|Views: 74 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: DERRICK D. GILLESPIE (Mr.) on Feb 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/21/2013

pdf

text

original

 
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 
)to the above
author’s
counterarguments, shehas been working overtime to try and rescue an already lost cause. Her part 2 responses (seethem 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 ongoingdefense 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 QUOTEDSTATEMENT, OR REFER TO HER, OR ACCUSE HER OF GREED IN PART 2 OF REVIEW. I am a writerand an apologist myself, with a whole lot of "intellectual property" in the public domain, and Imyself have to guard against ego, and a desire to spread the gospel for profit. I spoke aboutwhat I myself have to guard against, and yet Joy Davis says I was ACCUSING her. How does shereally 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 mewith doing something that only exists in her mind by way of an ASSUMPTION!!! Hmmmmm. JoyDavis is so emotionally driven at times that sometimes it blinds her to the need to discuss issuesdispassionately. Want to see instances of how Joy Davis is soooo emotionally driven, and goesoverboard with being emotional and being unable to be dispassionate ? Watch her on JamaicanTV 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; notattack the person and impute motive or color character simply because of being disagreed withon an issue. Clearly she cannot dispassionately debate an issue without sitting in judgment oncharacter or becoming personal. Part 2 of her response is so filled with PERSONAL ATTACKS it isquite revealing. Notice examples below all quoting how she attacks my person simply fordisagreeing with her thesis:
"So blatant is Mr. Gillespie’s dishonesty" 
 "Such an intent is designed to mislead and deceive the reader. This isINTELLECTUAL 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 himto 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. Gillespie’s review has shown that he is a MASTER DECEIVER..."
 A DISPASSIONATE DEBATER AND OBJECTIVE POLEMICIST WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT YOUROPPONENT CAN MISUNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWPOINT, MIGHT MISREAD A STATEMENT, OR WILLJUST SIMPLY USE THE OPPOSITIONAL LANGUAGE OF DEBATE WITHOUT BEING DELIBERATELYDISHONEST, WITHOUT DELIBERATELY FABRICATING LIES, WITHOUT INTENDING TOMISREPRESENT YOUR STATEMENTS, OR WITHOUT BEING MALICIOUS. BUT JOY DAVIS SITS INJUDGMENT ON THE OPPONENT'S CHARACTER SIMPLY BECAUSE HER VIEW IS AGGRESSIVELYDISAGREED 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 yemete, 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 anti-Christ" 
WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID:
" Any teaching which teaches that Jesus, despite being God’s “only begotten Son”, is not "God" in nature *se
e 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 anti-
Christ, and by it the very teaching of God’s image in man is being obliterated." 
 
TRUTH BE TOLD? I REFERRED TO HER
*TEACHING
AS "ANTI-CHRIST IN SPIRIT" AND I NOWHERECALLED HER A "FALSE PROPHET". BUT HER
TEACHING
STANDS CONDEMNED IN MY BOOK; NOTHER AS A PERSON!! IT IS GOD'S ROLE TO JUDGE HER; NOT ME. I WONT SIT IN JUDGMENT ONHER 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 author’s right to freedom of conscience, and I also
  protect her right to disseminate her views through this newly published book. But I amappealing 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 thesupreme 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" OFHER BOOK:
If Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis had thought that by her barrage of personal attacks against myperson that this approach would discourage me from constantly reviewing her thesis andcounterarguments, or I would let her off the hook for presenting error, I guess she has anotherthing coming.The more she endeavors to argue her way out of an already faulty thesis, is the more herarguments gets complicated and glaringly contradictory. She may think that hercounterarguments contain truth, but that is a shortsighted view which may only convinceherself, or the few Muslims here and there who are her main supporters its seems these days

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->