Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Jesus is Not God With a Capital "G": A Biblical Unitarian Christological Perspective Paperback – April 5, 2016
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Customers who bought this item also bought
If you buy a new print edition of this book (or purchased one in the past), you can buy the Kindle edition for only $1.99 (Save 80%). Print edition purchase must be sold by Amazon. Learn more.
For thousands of qualifying books, your past, present, and future print-edition purchases now lets you buy the Kindle edition for $2.99 or less. (Textbooks available for $9.99 or less.)
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The title intrigued me to take a look. Essentially what the author did was to challenge the basic tenets of the Trinitarian faith. However I find his arguments rather unconvincing. His position is somewhat Arianism where God created Jesus and explained that The Word in John 1:1 is not Jesus, Jesus who is of the form of God does not equate that He is God in Phillipians 2. The way that he explain away the joining evidence of the trinitarians from scripture rendered the scripture to feel disjointed in a sense that the OT is not related to the NT when Jesus was supposed to be the core of all divine inspired scripture.
One thing that the author failed to account for was that in the early Church, Jesus was regarded as God (See epistle of Ignatius of Antiorch to the Ephesians). Discarding this, he however tried to show that the early church regarded only the Father who is God.
Another thing is he explained the mighty God in Isaiah 9:6 actually is better translated as mighty warrior this Jesus is not supposed to be Mighty God as presented by trinitarians but a mighty warrior. But the same word is also found in Isaiah 10:21 which it was describing God of the OT as Mighty God. Therefore this explaination to say the foretold messiah is not God is unaccepatable.
Also, the author spent a chapter to deal with the plurality of Elohim where he positions that plurality is not to be taken as how trinitarians meaning that God was made of 3. But I would like to highlight that just because the Godhead as understood by trinitarians as 3 persons doesnt mean God is not one when all 3 are acting as the One God. The plurality or singularity of the word Elohim should be irrelevant. It may be because the author tried to present Trinity as Tritheism which will make more sense.
Sure, Trinity is not a word in the Bible, but so is Theocracy not a word in the Bible, but we can derive the concept of Theocracy. Given Jesus and the Spirit exhibited so many qualities of what we understood as the qualities reserved only for the God of the OT, but Christianity is strictly monotheistic and the Father, the Son and the Spirit all exhibits the quality of God of the OT, isn't that enough to derive the concept of trinity from what we observed? Note that Trinitarians are not Tritheistic. Trinitarians still believe in One God.
Some other things that the author did not consider:
1. Isaiah 43:11 where God of the OT declared that He is the only saviour and there are no other saviour, yet Jesus Christ is regarded as the Saviour (John 4:42, Luke 2:11) which clearly shows the divinity of Christ.
2. Jesus was worshipped and if Jesus was not God in the OT sense, He should not have been worshipped.
3. Colossians 2:9 where Paul says Jesus Christ is "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form", are we saying the fullness of Deity here doesn't equate to God?