Bible Never Says Jesus is God
Read this site for a Christian refutation of the idea that the Bible
holds that Jesus is God http://www.christadelphia.org/wrested1.htm
Click these chapter headings to navigate the site quickly
THE SON OF GOD – WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
THE SON OF GOD –
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. This doctrine is taught by all four gospels.
In Matthew 16, Jesus asks his apostles who they believe he is. Peter answers. He tells him that he is the Christ the Son of
God. Jesus says he is right and that God
has revealed it. When Jesus was baptised
in the
What does the title, the Son of God, mean? It’s THE Son, not a Son so it denotes
something unique and special.
According to
mainstream Christian dogma, God is one being who exists as three equal and
distinct persons. The Father is the
First Person, the Son is the Second and the Holy Spirit is the Third. The Son comes from the Father and the Holy
Spirit comes from the two of them although none of the three started to exist
but always existed. So if the Son
becomes a man it follows that this man is the Son of God even if he had a human
father. Calling yourself the Son of God
would mean that you are claiming to be God on this understanding. Jesus, however, even if he did accept the
three in one doctrine might have meant something else by calling himself the
Son of God. And if the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son it follows that he is the Son of the
Father and the Son which proves the Trinity, as stated by the Christians, to be
lunacy. (The early Church erred in
giving the Second Person of the Trinity the name, God the Son, as if he were
the only one.) But
anyway, if the three are the one being then whatever one does all do. Do they have three wills that work in union? The Church says they have one will for they
are one being. It follows that if Jesus
believed in the Trinity he would have had to claim to have been three persons
incarnate at the same time for three wills mean three God’s so there can be one
will.
Christians explain that God is not three persons but three “persons” and
even admit that three persons in the sense we take persons cannot be one God
(page 50, Jehovah’s Witnesses).
They are not persons like us but persons is the best word we have to
describe them though it is inaccurate.
If so, then Jesus is not the Son in the proper sense. It too means something inscrutable and
mysterious. But Jesus claimed to be the
Son in the sense intended by the Old Testament which was not that sense but in
the sense of a unique and special and holy creation of God. The Jews and their scriptures called God
Father in the sense of being maker and kindly sustainer
of all. Jesus did not think he was God
the Son.
The Bible does not say the three are “persons” so Trinitarian theology is
a man-made solution to a possible contradiction in the Bible.
Some cults and sects say that if Jesus said he was the Son of God that he
meant that he had no human father, that God was his father in the sense that he
miraculously caused the conception without sperm. Perhaps.
But the Bible does not actually teach this understanding.
The Son of God might be the title for the person who is next to God,
God’s right hand man on earth. He is the
child of God in the same sense as everybody else but is called the unique son
because of his inimitable or flawless sanctity.
The Jews called lots of holy men the son of God (page 40, The
Metaphor of God Incarnate).
The Son of God could simply be a man who was adopted by God as a Son but
this would imply that nobody else can be adopted.
Haley says that there is no contradiction between the Bible calling Jesus
the only son of God and saying we are sons for it means that Jesus was the only
begotten Son of God in the Christian Trinity sense and we are only adopted
(page 109). But we are begotten even
more than Jesus would be. Christians say
that Jesus is caused by the Father even though both are God and equal. God caused God the same being but begetting
causes another being. When God makes us
he begets us so the doctrine that we are not begotten is an error even if
Jesus, as man, was made too. Jesus
denied he was God when he said he was the Son of God.
The Gospels lie when they say that Jesus called himself the Son of
God. Jesus believed that since God comes
first, anybody who claims to have a unique prophetic relation to God or to be
God needs to prove it by stupendous miracles and Jesus allegedly stated that
the resurrection was that miracle. So
when Jesus stated that the greatest man ever born was John the Baptist and that
nobody was ever greater than John before the resurrection happened it follows
that Jesus was including himself as well as an inferior to the Baptist. To exclude himself would have been arrogant
and premature. The Baptist was an
apocalyptic prophet who did no miracles and still he was better. If anybody was the Son of God it was the
Baptist and there were early sects that believed that about John. But if John was not the Son of God then Jesus
even less so.
Bible critics declare that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. They
seem to think that because Jesus did not broadcast it more that they are
right. But the gospels do not say that
he didn’t at least at the later part of the ministry. Jesus swore those who believed he was Son of
God to secrecy. The gospels leave lots
of details out. Since they said that
Jesus was God’s Son they might have sensed no need to report him broadcasting
it. But that is speculation. In any case, we have to go by the
writings. The most likely position is
that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God.
Jesus’ favourite
title was the Son of Man. This title
implies that he was nothing more than a man and used this title to emphasise
that. But some claim, including Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ (page 30), that
because Daniel 7:13 speaks of one coming before God like a son of man that
Jesus was claiming to be divine! But all
Daniel says is that a being came before God like a son of man or like a man or
in the image of a man. And that being
got the power to rule under God. Nothing
indicates that the title denotes divinity or that the being was divine. Son of man is ben adam in Hebrew which not only means man but a man (SON OF
MAN, Biblical Dictionary and Concordance, NAB).
There is no evidence that Jesus was even thinking about the figure in
Daniel when he used the title. He did
use the imagery of Daniel at his trial but that may have been the first time he
started using Daniel’s application of it to mean a being who would get great
power from God. By the way Strobel thinks Jesus doing miracles on his own authority
proved he was God for the power came from God and only God could decide how to
use the power. This is a lie because God
could give Jesus power to do as he wished without Jesus being God.
NO MAN-GOD
PREDICTIONS
Is it true that the doctrine of Jesus being God came from the Old
Testament which foretold that God would become man? The Church nods but we must shake our heads.
GENESIS 1:26. God says that he is an
us implying that there are a number of persons in one God. This is supposed to show that Jesus was God
the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
If God is more than one person that does not imply that one of these
persons became Jesus Christ. There could
be a God the Son but who didn’t become Jesus.
It is most probable that the plural in Genesis is what the Jews always
said it was, just a way of expressing the plurality of God’s majesty. It is a method of emphasising God’s majesty
though it is but one majesty by calling it majesties. It is a meaningful exaggeration. The same device turns up in Psalm 145:5, “The
glorious splendour of Your majesty”. The
glory of your glory is saying that the glory is glorious which makes no sense
verbally. But it is just a way of
showing it cannot be exaggerated.
ISAIAH 9:6. “To us a Child is
born…and his name shall be called…Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of eternity],
Prince of Peace.”
It is odd that all these things are not his names but his name. This indicates that he will bear a name that
will carry all these meanings inside it.
Jesus only means God saves and it cannot have these meanings. And if Isaiah meant name as in title then
that does not mean that Jesus or whoever is mighty God but bears the honorary
title of mighty God.
The Hebrew word for God in this is El and El means strength. The name Yahweh or Jehovah is not used
here. El was applied to kings and judges
but they could not be called Yahweh or Jehovah.
If my name is Daniel which means Divine Judge would that mean I am asking
to be considered God? Proof that the
verse does not say that the child is God but bears the names of God like most
Hebrews of the time did is in the title Prince of Peace. A man who is God could not be a Prince for he
is God the King.
In Genesis 5, the birth of a man called Mahalalel
is mentioned. Mahalalel
means the Blessed God.
In Isaiah 7:14, we read that a child will be born who is Emmanuel which
means God is with us. The verse is traditionally
and incorrectly taken as a prophecy of Christ.
It is also supposed that the name Emmanuel proves that the child is God
with us which is going beyond the text.
The child was not Jesus but another child who would get
Isaiah only says what the child will be called and gives no approval
though it hints that the child will be greatly esteemed. Yet this verse is supposed to prove Jesus was
fully God. Emmanuel could have been a
title rather than a name or it could have been a nickname.
Exodus 23:20, 21 says that God’s name was in this angel that looked after
If the New Testament calls Jesus God then how can we trust it when the Old
Testament never supports this practice?
Jesus said that the Old Testament texts were superior to his revelation
for they were his credentials. He even
told a parable to say that it was better to listen to the Law of Moses and the
Prophets than even to listen to a man who came back from the dead for they were
more convincing.
MICAH 5:2. The King of Israel
shall be born in
Only the activity of the Ruler has no origin. It is true that the verse may mean this or
then again it might not so it proves nothing about this man being as
self-existent or eternal as God and therefore God. There is no past or future in eternity so
Jesus could have been created by God and still work in all eternity for Jesus
was taken out of time into eternity to sit at God’s right hand. The verse does not prove that the Messiah
would be God.
The work of the Messiah is the work of God and in that sense it has no
origin. The Messiah has his origin from
eternity and eternity can mean God himself.
It’s a way of saying that the Messiah was God’s creation in a special
way.
The Old Testament was reputed among the early Christians to have stated
that the Christ would die for sins and rise again. If there are any texts that refer to him as a
God-man and one to whom worship is due and one who is the chief ruler of the
universe next to God then it follows they refer to somebody else because the
Bible is clear that since idols are not gods for they can be smashed up
implying that anyone who dies on a cross cannot be prophesied in those texts
for he can’t be God.
NT HAS NO MAN-GOD
Let us now comb the gospels to see if Jesus thought he was God the Son,
God almighty. The Gospel of John is
dealt with in my book John Gospel Denies Jesus is God. In brief, that gospel says that Jesus was the
incarnation of the Word, the message of God and God is his message. But that is not the same as saying that Jesus
is God. A saint who is not God can be
the incarnation of the love of God even though God is said in Christian belief
to be love itself.
When Jesus said that before Abraham was I am and I am being the name of
God in the Old Testament he didn’t say he meant it in the sense that God meant
it. Jesus said that he and the Father
are one but that could be a reference to his being the manifestation of the
Father for he said he is the image of the Father so that he who sees him sees
the Father. He said he wanted his
followers to be one in the same way he and the Father are one indicting that he
didn’t mean that he was one nature with the Father. Jesus denied he was God when he said his
teaching was not his own but the teaching of the Father.
Let us explore the non-Johannite New Testament
texts that are cited as evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ.
MATTHEW 11:27. “No one fully knows
and accurately understands the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son
deliberately wills to make Him known.”
The identity of Jesus with God can be proven from this verse for he says
that he knows God as well as God knows him.
Only God could know God.
God can make infinite things so he could have made Christ infinite in his
mind so he would know everything about him.
Christ, knowing God, would not necessarily be God. If Jesus did not claim to be God then he
might have meant by full understanding the fullest possible understanding. Jesus said that nobody knows God but him and
God knows him but he never said he knows God as well as God knows him which
would be a claim to be God. The passage
can only be taken to say that Jesus and God know one another literally inside
out when it presupposed that Jesus was God.
Presuppositions should be left aside to let the passage say what it
wants.
Besides what about the Holy Spirit?
MATTHEW 12. Jesus says that to
insult him is to blaspheme him and you can only blaspheme God therefore Jesus
is God.
But a Catholic hymn to Mary goes, “While wicked men blaspheme thee, we’ll
love and bless thy name.” To blaspheme a
sacred book would be to indirectly blaspheme God for it is his word. Jesus could have been blasphemed without
being God but merely the messenger of God.
ACTS
Jesus purchased the Church with his so Jesus is God.
The bit about God gaining the Church by his own blood may be rendered,
“God gained the Church by the blood of his own”. Read the note about the verse in The Revised
Standard Version. God could have
replaced Jesus in Jesus’ body just as he was about to die so that Jesus was not
God but God died on the cross. Jesus
need not have been God or need his body always have been the body of God. But the Bible says Jesus died on the cross so
perhaps Jesus and God were in the same body which can be done for a short time
when both minds are in concord. Perhaps
God temporarily incarnated himself in the body of Christ alongside the
personality of Jesus so that both died on the cross.
The New Testament never states that Jesus was God all the time and
actually states a few times that he was not God.
ROMANS 5:1. We enjoy peace through
our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
Lane Fox says that there is a textual problem here (page 140, The
Unauthorized Version). Even the
Amplified Bible says it promises peace through God AND our Lord Jesus Christ
making a distinction between the two. If
Paul had believed in the deity of Jesus he would have said so here. Christians tend to call Jesus God instead of
saying God and Jesus and they are right if Jesus is God. If Paul had believed in Jesus as God there
was no way he would have got into the
Also, later in Romans v8 Paul says that God proved his love that in while
we were still sinners Christ died for us.
Paul infers that God gave up his son for us and not himself for had he
meant God gave himself he would have substituted the word Christ with the word
God for that would prove the point that God is love far better and more
naturally.
ROMANS 9:5 says that Christ is of the flesh of the Jews and is God over
all and is blessed (page 31, Jehovah’s Witnesses).
The New World Translation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses says that the God is
over all and blessed be God bit is a separate sentence which makes it possible
for them to say it does not call Jesus God but just blesses God. Scholars admit that this rendering is possible
(page 31, Jehovah’s Witnesses).
But it is objected that their version disrupts the flow of the
text. But sometimes people do write in a
slightly disrupted way. It is hard to
keep up the skill of keeping the flow right all the time.
ROMANS 10:13 is supposed to say that anybody who calls on the name of
Jesus as Lord will be saved (page 31, Jehovah’s Witnesses). Catholics say that this means that Jesus is
God for verses that speak of God are quoted as back-up for saying that all who
call on the Lord will be saved.
First Romans says that if you confess the name of Jesus you will be
saved. Then it quotes a verse saying
that nobody believing in him will be ashamed.
It could be that Paul switched from Jesus to God when he quoted that and
the link is that God saves through Jesus.
He never says we must call on Jesus but on the Lord. To call on the Lord is to call on Jesus
anyway for Jesus is the one appointed to be saviour.
1 CORINTHIANS 12:3. “Jesus is
Lord.” Jesus was called the Kyrios which is the name of God so Jesus was God.
If a man was the image of God, God might wish to honour him by calling
him after himself to show how special and significant he was. If God is a spirit then God is activity. If a man displays God by doing his works then
that man can be called God’s name for that man is the image of God.
2 CORINTHIANS 11:31. Paul uses the
Jewish blessing word that was for God alone in that religion to describe Jesus
(page 267, Christianity for the Tough-Minded). It is eulog-etus. But Paul discarded much of Jewish man-made
tradition like Jesus did so the fact that the Jews used the word for God and
that he used it for Jesus is not support for the fantasy that he regarded Jesus
as divine. He was not writing to Jews
but Gentiles who would not have understood his expression in the Jewish way.
PHILIPPIANS 2:6. Christians say,
“Jesus is described as being in the form of God which means he is God because
form of God signifies that Jesus was what God was and had his form (see page 126,
Some Modern Faiths for example).
Therefore, Jesus has all that constitutes God as God for it says later
that Jesus took the form of a servant that he took all that makes a servant a
servant. Moreover, it says that he put
away his equality with God. So being
equal to God and having the nature of God, Jesus must be God. In the form of God does not mean just that
Jesus was spiritually like God in his goodness and love because the text says
he emptied himself to take the form of a servant meaning that he gave up his
divine powers or his powers from God to be like a servant so he was not going
to give up his goodness and love to become a servant. He was exalted to a state similar to God’s
and given supernatural powers and glory.
He took on the form of a servant voluntarily. He was still the creature who is next to God
and God.”
If Jesus was in the form of God and that means he was really God then he
was not really a servant and we are told he took the form of a servant. So at least one of the in the form ofs is not literally saying that Jesus was what he was
linked to. If it is the in the form of a
servant then Jesus was not a literal servant for if he is God he cannot be a
servant even if he just refuses to use his powers – he is still playacting. If it is the in the form of God then Jesus was
not literally God. Perhaps both are
non-literal? At any rate the passage
cannot show that Jesus is definitely God.
So
then in his servant state he was still the ruler if he was God or a
pre-existent Son of God who was enthroned at God’s right hand and enjoying
Godlike power before coming to earth.
Strictly speaking he was not a servant at all for in helping others he
was gaining people to rule. A servant is
an inferior and Jesus was never that - but he was just playacting. Paul did not believe that Jesus was a servant
in the proper sense for he said that he was the Christ, a king. If the expression “in the form of” which appears
twice has the same sense as Christians suppose then Paul did not say that Jesus
was literally God just that Jesus was godlike.
Paul used in the form of loosely and not strictly so it does not prove
that Jesus was God. If he came close to
verbally saying that Jesus was God and backed off how could Jesus be really
God?
The context is about power and giving up that power so equal to God most
probably means that Jesus was given equal power to God. But God would still be the holder of the
power and strictly speaking Jesus would have no power of his own for God only
uses the power as Jesus wills and Jesus only wills what God wills. The Prime Minister can be equal to the king
when the king gives him lots of power but the power is still really the
king’s. So they are equal and yet the
king is superior at the same time.
Paul tells us that Jesus did not take equality with God though it was a
thing to be grabbed or grasped. This
makes it clear that he was not already God or equal to God.
Jesus put away his glory and power to become a man and in this sense only
did he cease to be equal to God. He
emptied himself in this way. Jesus could
not have been God for God cannot change according to the scriptures which Paul
was so familiar with. Christianity says God could take on an additional nature,
a human nature, but he would not be laying aside his majesty because in Heaven
he would still have it all. In fact
since God’s majesty is really just love, his becoming man would be adding to
the majesty if that were possible. Paul
applauded the scriptures so he believed that Jesus could not abandon his glory
if he was truly divine. Jesus was not
equal to God in the sense that he was God but in the sense that all God’s power
was his to use. If God has power and
gives it to Jesus that makes Jesus his equal even though Jesus is dependant on
him.
Some say that the text says nothing about glory but only power. But is there any difference in reality? God’s power is his glory. His love is his power and his glory. He is
not like a king who needs glitter and paraphernalia to be glorious.
But if Jesus had godlike power he had to have glory and majesty for these
things are not just fancy robes and halos but making others awestruck regarding
your power. The angels would have had
inferior glory to him and been his servants.
The text does not prove Jesus’ pre-existence when it says that Jesus laid
aside his equality with God to take the form of a servant. Jesus could have been a man with godlike
powers who was granted these powers some stage during his life and who never
used them but gave them up at the start of his ministry or more probably to be
arrested and be executed on a cross.
Some say that since the text says that Jesus received the name of Lord
which is the highest name and makes him Lord of Heaven and earth and all that
is in them that Paul is declaring that Jesus is God for he has God’s own name
(page 13, Jehovah’s Witnesses).
But the context eliminates that interpretation as we have seen. He is the highest under God. What Paul actually said was that Jesus was
exalted and given the highest name so that at the name of Jesus every knee in
Heaven earth and underneath the earth would bend at his name and confess him as
Lord to the glory of the Father. But if
Jesus was God he could not be exalted to receive this entitlement for he would
already have it. And to imagine that
Jesus became God at that point would be inane.
Paul has a God who cannot absorb persons to make them become him.
If you reject the possibility that Philippians said Jesus was in the form
of God and was a slave are both non-literal then the following would be
true. The simplest way to prove that
Philippians did not declare Jesus to be God is to realise that when it says
that Jesus became a servant, actually a slave according to the original Greek
and many translations, he became as all men are. Now how could God be a slave? A slave is a person who works for nothing and
who is somebody else’ property. Jesus
could not be God’s property if he is God.
And Jesus could not work for nothing if he was God. The sense of the hymn is totally lost if you
hold that Jesus was God and was destined to rise again from the dead to have
everlasting glory for that is payment.
Jesus is a slave in the sense that he worked for God without being sure
he would remain faithful enough to get the reward of resurrection and
exaltation and everlasting glory.
COLOSSIANS 2:9. The fullness, the
totality of God, dwells in Jesus’ body.
It dwells in him “in bodily form [giving complete expression of the
divine nature]”. Jesus must have been
God.
Christians say that the better you are the more you express the nature of
God. The more you show what God is
like. If Jesus was sinless then he expressed
God completely. Jesus could do this
without being God or even being sinless all the time.
If the verse meant Jesus was God then why didn’t it say, “God was
incarnate and took flesh in Jesus and became Jesus.”
1 TIMOTHY 3:16. Lane Fox tells us
that the most accurate and oldest text of 1 Timothy 3:16 does not say that
Jesus was God manifested in the flesh (page 140, The Unauthorized
Version).
TITUS 2:13. It calls Jesus “our
great God and Savior”.
Many ancient authorities contradict this and say it is our great God and
our saviour making a distinction between Christ and God. The notes of the Revised Standard Version
make it clear that either reading will do.
See also page 140 of The Unauthorized Version.
HEBREWS 1:5. This says that God
never said to any angel that he was his son but said it to Jesus. It is surmised that Jesus must have been God
for he was not an angel.
If Jesus was a man and not an angel that could be why we read this. Angel
means messenger and the word itself has no supernatural implications. Angel could be meant in the sense of a spirit
servant while Jesus might have been treated as royalty and not a servant
despite having the same nature as an angel.
Jesus might not have had the nature of the angels at all but was only an
angel in role and function.
HEBREWS 1:8. God said to the Son
of God, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
This is a citation from the Psalms (45).
The writer of Hebrews knew that it referred to a past king of
The passage is also poetry. You
cannot take poetic language too literally.
The King of Israel sat in the place of God and his throne was the throne
of God. The king sits on the throne of
God. God promised an everlasting king to
2 PETER 1:2. “Our God and Saviour
Jesus”.
This translation is disputed. The
right one may be, “Our God and the Saviour Jesus.”
1 JOHN 5:7,8. This says that there
are three witnesses the Father Word and Holy Spirit and the three are one God.
This appears only in late manuscripts and its authenticity is universally
rejected now. The Church put it in the
Bible to get people to believe in the Trinity.
REVELATION
The expressions describe the power to create and destroy. God can give these to creatures. In a sense only God can create and
destroy. A creature can only do it when God
enables him to. Both can be the
beginning and the end at the same time.
REVELATION 22:8-9. Jesus accepted
worship but the angel forbade John to do it and asked him to adore God alone so
Jesus must have been God.
Wrong. The angel was a messenger
and it was not his job to answer prayers and to accept worship. Jesus was made Lord of all and had this
job. When we read of people worshipping
Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels which say that Jesus was not God this makes the
Catholic explanation to be worthless speculation. There is a better explanation which we will
see later.
CONCLUSION
The deity of Jesus is not in the Bible.
It must be an invention of the Church under the influence of
paganism. We have no evidence whatsoever
that Jesus or the earliest Church made this claim that Jesus was God.
BOOKS CONSULTED
A CALL TO HERESY, Robert Van de Weyer, Lamp
Press,
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE, John W Haley,
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various,
CHRIST IS GOD, Rev JP Arendzen DD, Augustine
Publishing Company,
CHRIST OUR LIGHT, J Buys SJ Geoffrey Chapman
and Gill & Son, London-Melbourne,
CHRISTIANITY FOR
THE TOUGH-MINDED Ed John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany Fellowship Inc,
CTS EXPLANATIONS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, by John Wijngaards,
Catholic Truth Society,
DID JESUS CHRIST REALLY COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN? Alan Hayward, Christadelphian
ALS,
DO CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THREE GODS?
Radio Bible Class,
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, Vol 1, Josh
McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
FOUR GREAT HERESIES, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward,
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft
& Ronald Tacelli, Monarch,
HERESIES AND HOW TO AVOID THEM, Editors Ben Quash and Michael Ward, SPCK, London, 2007
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press,
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES John Wijngaards, Catholic
Truth Society,
JESUS AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE GOSPELS, Daniel J Grolin, George Ronald, Oxford, 2002
JESUS GOD THE SON OR SON OF GOD?
Fred Pearce Christadelphian Publishing Office,
MERE CHRISTIANITY, CS Lewis,
MIRACLES, CS Lewis,
PRIESTLAND’S PROGRESS, Gerald Priestland,
BBC,
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988
SET MY EXILES FREE, John Power, Logos Books, MH
Gill & Son Ltd,
SOME MODERN FAITHS, Maurice C Burrell and J
THE CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins
and
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE GODHEAD EXPLAINED, Christadelphian Press,
THE METAPHOR OF GOD INCARNATE, John Hick, SCM
Press,
THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, John Hick ed., SCM
Press,
THE NEW CULTS, Walter Martin, Vision House,
THE SPIRIT OF GOD, John Bedson, Lightstand
THE UNAUTHORISED VERSION, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin Books, Middlesex,
1992
UNDERSTANDING THE CULTS, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Campus Crusade
for Christ,
UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER ESSAYS, William Ellery Channing, The Bobs-Merrill Company Inc,
YOU CAN LIVE FOREVER IN
THE WWW
http://www.christadelphia.org/wrested1.htm
http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html,
Kevin Quick discusses the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the Bible never
says that Jesus is God
www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/fathersonwayne.htm
Father and/or Son by H Wayne Hamburger
Saturday, 16 February 2008