1

Part 2- A REVIEW OF THE BOOK: “JESUS CHRIST IS

NOT GOD” by Joy Penrose-Davis (2011)

Reviewed by Derrick Gillespie (Teacher, Munro College)

IN A RECENT (JULY) 2012 ONLINE "RESPONSE" TO MY SHORTER “REVIEW” OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED

BOOK,THE BOOK AUTHOR JOY PENROSE-DAVIS ISSUED THE FOLLOWING CHALLENGE, BY SAYING (IN

PART) TO HER READERS: "Mr. Gillespie is unable to identify a contradictory statement [in my book] ...in

Mr. Gillespie’s “review” of a book, which in his word is “riddled” with contradictions, he has failed to

produce even one instance of those contradictions? .... Please ask him to compile a list of these

contradictions. As soon as he does, do not hesitate to bring it to my attention. I anxiously wait!”

You know, the Bible declares that "pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty [smug] spirit before a

fall". This Scripture is applicable to all indeed; even to author Joy Penrose-Davis who is so SMUG to

believe her book is so infallible. Reading her “response” to my shorter “review” of her book, it is plain

she sees no possibility of weakness or error in her work. Well, for the benefit of readers, who need

objectivity and another vista, I now respond to the request by the author herself. This is part 2 of my

“book review” IN GREATER DETAIL, and I will now be including detailed evidence of the GLARING

CONTRADICTIONS by her in her much self-lauded book; instances in which she not only contradicted her

own self in several places, but also contradicted certain aspects of the FULL teaching of the Bible. I will

also present a more substantial case for my opposition to her book than just the summary statements

made in part 1 of this “review” of her 2011 publication. Before launching into that however, let me

make these two quick points:

a] 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." And remember, the words “even as” means TO THE

SAME DEGREE, just as when the Bible instructs me to love my neighbor “as” myself. Since the highest

“honor” we bestow on God is WORSHIP, then no wonder the Father himself made it clear to angels

(seen in Heb. 1:6) that even when Jesus became human he should be “worshipped”! He deserves the

same “honor”!

b] It must be made clear to the reader that part 1 of my “book review”, which the author responded to,

was in fact a shorter/summary version of my “review” of her thesis. It came long after a more detailed

and substantial critique of her thesis, as presented by her both in the book and as defended on national

television in Jamaica. Upon being written, this earlier and more detailed critique was (out of respect)

made available to the author BEFORE its publication online. In that earlier detailed review of her thesis I

have already responded to all her MAJOR arguments that she chose to simply repeat in her online

“response” to my “book review”; yes, she “repeated” them while not in the least making her position

2

any more compelling or irrefutable. She also has chosen, conveniently it does appear, to respond to the

shorter/summary version of my “review” that did not go into details, but readers can judge for

themselves whether my longer anti-thesis to her teaching makes sense, or, more importantly, is biblical

or not. I won’t blow my own trumpet in that regard. Feel free to access, for free, that earlier written and

more detailed review of her thesis at the following link HERE.

Without any further ado let me now launch into the task at hand.

SECTION A: PLAIN CONTRADICTIONS BY THE AUTHOR IN HER BOOK:

As said before, the author not only contradicted herself in several places, but also contradicted the Bible

itself in several instances, even while denying certain plain teachings of Scripture, and even while

presenting SOME truths that cannot be denied. Experience and Biblical wisdom has taught me however

that a deception is more effective when it mixes truth with falsehood, and that is the dangerous nature

of Joy Penrose-Davis’ 2011 book, in my humble view. This reality will become clear to you dear reader as

you proceed through the following SAMPLE list of contradictions evident in her book, and you will see

that my presentation is certainly not just “biased opinion and the ranting and ravings of a closed,

deceived, indoctrinated mind” (according to the book author).

Let me now outline various instances of self-contradictions by the author:

1. On page 166 of her book ("Jesus Christ is not God", 2011) she declares: “As we know, Jesus has long ago given up his humanity and has returned to heaven". Thing is, I am not sure on what basis she can say "as we know", since that very statement she herself CONTRADICTED on several other pages of her book. For instance, on page 73 she quotes Scriptures and argues that God will, IN THE FUTURE, judge the world by "THAT MAN whom he has ordained” (Acts 17:30,31), and further declared on page 74 that "the man is [not "was", but "IS"] Jesus Christ". In fact her very own words in the book declare on page 73 “it is a MAN God has ordained to Judge the world”. “Don’t you dare miss it” she further says on page 74. Other places in the book she underscores the point that PRESENTLY the ONLY mediator between God and man is "the MAN Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). But if the author will be humble enough to accept, this is a GLARING contradiction to her own statement elsewhere. If Jesus "GAVE UP HIS HUMANITY" (according to the author) how can she now declare that Jesus is “a MAN” or is “THAT man"? She needs to decide her own mind. Is he a man today or not? Is he FULLY what he was before he became a man, or is he not? And how can you "give up" and still be described by the nature she insists he “gave up”? Will it be a “created” spirit Son (as the author argues that he was before coming to earth) who will judge us in the future, or “that MAN” Jesus; a now glorified HUMAN, who was initially “in the form of God” and later “TOOK” the form of man and a “servant” (Philippians 2:5-8)? Certainly the latter! And lest the author might want to argue that Jesus did “give up” his humanity” upon returning to heaven, I ask her: [a] If Jesus is now just spirit (i.e. not human anymore) how could he NOW be our High Priest after He ascended, since a priest has to be in all things like whom he represents, and He must be taken from among “men” (Heb. 5:1)? Is she accusing Jesus of lying when he distinctly said a spirit does not have “flesh and bones” as he did when he was seen after his resurrection (compare Luke 24:39 with Eph. 5:30)? And why would Paul use the analogy of the church NOW being members of Jesus’ “BODY”, of his “flesh and of his bones”, if he was no longer human, i.e. with a body like us, just that it is now glorified?

3

[b] How does she account for Jesus being pictured in the future as “one like a son of man”, appearing before the Father to receive the earthly kingdom on our behalf (Dan. 7:13, 14)? [c] How does she account for Jesus returning with a “body”, as “one like a son of man” (see also Philippians 3:20-21; Matt. 24:30), and then he changing our “bodies” to be like his “glorious body”, and yet despite this “change” Job (the patriarch) expected it to be his very same body of “flesh”, 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)? No need to debate the obvious, that it is a clear case of self-contradiction by Penrose-Davis to say Jesus

will judge us as a man in the future, and that presently he is a human Mediator between the Father and

us, and yet declares he “gave up his humanity”! Interestingly, if Mrs. Penrose-Davis had seen the truth

that Jesus is still man, even today, then she would see the reason for other truths about his continued

subjection to the Father as the second Adam, a Man, i.e. operating in his continued subordinate roles as

the Messianic human even in heaven today, and why. But alas…

2. Secondly, all over her book she argues that when the word "him" is used it cannot mean more than

one person, yet as soon as she confronts John 20:28, 29, where Thomas "said unto HIM" [Jesus] "my

Lord and my God", suddenly she CONTRADICTS her own self-imposed rule and argues that Thomas was

speaking to two beings when he said unto "HIM" "my Lord and my God". Again I say Joy Penrose-Davis

needs to make up her own mind. But it is self-evident why she contradicts her own rule here, and I am

smiling. It is a poor exegete of the Bible who accuses Thomas, an ardent Jew and a disciple of Jesus, of

taking God’s name in vain (as Mrs. Davis does argue), i.e. in a kind of exclamation of surprise (see Exodus

20:7), and then amazingly implies that Jesus ENDORSED his utterance (instead of rebuking him). Boxed

into a corner as to who Thomas referred to when he said unto “HIM” “my Lord and my God”, she then

makes the rather mind boggling statement on page 212 that “Thomas was not referring to one person

only but to two”! Well, if the word “him” can so apply to more than one person, it immediately calls into

question the author’s own argumentation about the pronoun “him” always having a singular being in

focus. This ‘breaking of her own rule’ about the word “him” shows how she arbitrarily and

CONVENIENTLY imposes her own view on the Bible when it suits her! I simply say, this a specious form

of sophistry being employed by this author. I have no choice but to reject her teaching on the deeper

things of God!

3. The third example, among the several instances of her glaring contradictions in the book, is closely

connected in nature to example #2 above. She argues in several places in her book that whenever the

words "beside me there is none other" is uttered by God, it automatically excludes Jesus His Son. Yet

another glaring CONTRADICTION by her is to argue that despite God in Isaiah 43:11 declared “beside

me there is no Savior”, i.e. in the sense of being "the Savior" from sin and hellfire, yet there is more

than one person or beings as “the Savior”. On page 214 of her book she declares: "BOTH the Father and

Son are our Saviors". On page 215 she further explains that “as Jesus is our Savior, so also is God the

Father” despite they are not the same being. She admits too elsewhere in the book that both the

Father and Son are called “the Lord”, in the sense of being our supreme “Master”, despite the Bible

4

declares that Jesus is the “one Lord” (1 Cor. 8:6). Fancy that! She admits that both Father and Son are

called "the Savior", as it relates to ultimate salvation, because the Bible repeatedly calls Jesus so, in spite

of Isaiah 43:11! Mrs. Penrose-Davis is willing to admit that, firstly, Isaiah 43:11 and the Bible allows for

an application of ‘Savior-hood’ to BOTH the Father and the Son, even if it does say "beside me [Jehovah]

there is no Savior", and, secondly, that the Bible allows for “Lordship” to be ascribed to the Father, even

if Jesus is called the “one Lord”. I SAY AN INCONSISTENCY AND THE CONTRADICTION OF HERSELF IS

PLAINLY EVIDENT! In one instance she is willing to properly reconcile seemingly contradictory

Scriptures, because obviously this would not detract from her book…or so she thought. However, in

other places in the book she speaks with a forked tongue when the Bible uses the same kind of

language about there being "no God beside" Jehovah in the face of Jesus (A SEPARATE PERSON) being

called “God” in Heb. 1:8, in John 1:1-3,14, in Isaiah 9:6 , among other places. Yet her book states

categorically that “Jesus Christ is not God”, in spite of what the Scriptures either PLAINLY declares or

implies strongly about Jesus in certain places! And she does a kind of ‘denial number’ in those instances,

and or refuses to properly reconcile Scriptures that seem contradictory, because the main thrust and

title of her book would be defeated if she did otherwise. It is inconsistency in exegesis by her, and

demonstrates her difficulty in, firstly, reconciling SOME Scripture with other Scripture which may seem

to be contradictory, and, secondly, in accepting the simple truth that Jesus is "the Savior", “the Lord”

and "the Mighty God" (see Is.9:6; John 1:1-3, 14) just like his Father; "the only true God" who declares

"beside me is no Savior". I CERTAINLY HAVE NO SUCH DIFFICULTY! Why is it easy for me to accept these

other truths that the author Penrose-Davis has major difficulty in accepting? Because I accept all of

what the Bible says; not just some portions. I say accept all truth, and walk in it; don’t fight it because

you don’t understand portions of it! I accept FULLY that in Jesus "DWELLETH [present continuous tense]

ALL THE FULLNESS of the *Godhead” [or the divine nature]. Note carefully "ALL the FULNESS [i.e. the

full complement] of the Godhead" or nature of divinity. Col. 2:9. And that is why he could declare, in a

sense like no other "Son of God" can, "I and my Father are one" (see John 10:27-36). This explains why

immediately the people who spoke his own native language knew what he meant… that he was

pronouncing himself “God” or one in nature with the Father (i.e. able to “give eternal life” like no other

man can do). This is similar, in principle, to a human son and human father being “Man” or “one” in

nature among men, and just as a man and woman are “one” in nature… but obviously different in roles

and individual features related to their roles and status (see for clarity Gen. 1:26, 27 and Rom. 1:19, 20).

4. The most shocking of all the self-contradictions by Mrs. Penrose-Davis in her book has to do with

“universal 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 if we worship him as divine or “God” when he is not (since,

as she argues, he is just a creature like ourselves,) then we are guilty of idol worship and the breaking

of the first two of the Ten Commandments (see Exodus 20:3-6). In fact 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. So there is no getting around this teaching of hers, that to ever (at any time) worship

Jesus as “God” this results in idol worship, and hence is SIN! One would have thought that this argument

5

by her would hold true from beginning to end of her book. Yet, when confronted with the PLAINLY

stated words in Isaiah 9:6 that Jesus’ name will be called “The Mighty God” and “the Everlasting Father”

(simply because from the very beginning he “was God” alongside and united with the God the Father;

see John 1:1-3, 14), Mrs. Penrose-Davis’s fertile imagination then goes into amazing overdrive, in order

to ‘rescue’ her book from being defeated by this powerful Isaiah 9:6 Scripture. She contends, 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” receive “universal worship” while bearing those titles that she contends is

reserved only for the Father of Jesus. 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! Dear reader, please ponder carefully the implications of this

*INVENTED teaching by this author (I say “invented” since I don’t know of anyone else in all Christianity

who teaches this heresy):

(i) She teaches 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) 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) 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) 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 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!

Enough said about the author contradicting herself in her own book!

Let me now turn to the myriad of instances in which Mrs. Penrose-Davis contradicted the Bible itself,

even as she thinks she is doing otherwise. What is it the Bible teaches about Jesus that Mrs. Penrose-

Davis’ book is most BLATANTLY CONTRADICTING? Well let’s see what the Bible says about Jesus even

while a man:

(CEV) “But God says about his Son, "You are God, 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.

6

Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy [human] fellows. Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands…” [compare John 1:1-3, 14] (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.” Both Scriptures apply to Jesus AFTER he became a man! Now I don’t need to ‘help’ to make clear the foregoing Scriptures, or attempt to ‘explain away’ the clear words of God himself about Jesus His Son, whom he gave to us FOREVER (John 3:16), and who became a Man in order to save us. God the Father’s own declaration settles it in the Bible! But because the very same Bible declares that the Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3) and the “one God” (1 Cor.8:6 and Eph.4:6), who declares “beside me there is no Savior” (Isaiah 43:10, 11), then Mrs. Penrose-Davis book has sought to deny all the foregoing Scriptures about Jesus, or to explain them away, even while being inconsistent and accepting ANOTHER PERSON than the Father as “the Savior” in spite of what Isaiah 43:11 says. But if one believes the Bible to be true one MUST accept ALL it says; not just portions! In accepting only portions Mrs. Penrose-Davis’ book contradicts the Bible in the following ways: “JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD” CONTRADICTING THE BIBLE ITSELF: 1. The Bible presents BOTH the fact that the Father is “the only true God” while at the same time

presenting this same God as addressing his Son (even while a man) as “O God” in Hebrews 1:8-12, and

who attributing creation to him as “the works of thine hands” (Col.1:16-18), and who today has him

seated upon and ruling alongside him forevermore on his very own throne (Rev. 3:21; Rev. 22:1, 3). To

the unlearned, or to a person not willing to accept all the Scriptures, this FULL Biblical teaching seems

contradictory, and so that person may reject aspects of the teaching. That is precisely what the “Jesus

Christ is not God” (2011) has done right throughout. It CONTRADICTS and rejects the repeated testimony

of the bible that Jesus is described as Creator just as his Father is, and denies that he has “all the

fullness” of “divinity” or the “divine nature”, or “the Godhead” (“theotes”, Greek; see Col. 2:9), and

denies that this explains why Jesus could be the means/medium through whom the Father created the

and sustains the entire universe, considering the no less than AWESOME and omnipotent or divine

power required to accomplish this reality (Heb. 1:2, 3). It CONTRADICTS and rejects that the Father

himself, that prophets like Isaiah, that disciples or apostles like Thomas, John, and Paul all referred to

Jesus as either “O God”, “God”, “the mighty God”, or “the great God” in several places in the Bible; not

because he is the person of the Father but because of his divine nature (Col. 2:9) as the Father’s “only

begotten Son”. And when you think about it, which true son in not like what his father is biologically,

who gave him all of his nature? I know of none! Yet the book further CONTRADICTS and rejects that

Jesus is the “express image” of the Father’s person or being (Heb.1:2, 3), and that “from everlasting” or

“from all eternity” past it has always been so (see Micah 5:2; 1 John 1:1-3). For the full list of Scriptures,

and the relevant and more detailed explanation of these issues, please download a free copy of my

initial DETAILED critique of Mrs. Penrose-Davis’ teaching HERE. No need to repeat what has already

been more than adequately addressed. See pages 3-26 of that book review for the relevant details.

7

“Prove all things”. But one key Scripture must never be ignored. It is Hebrews 1:8. While you study this

passage on the next page ever keep in mind:

“1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye

have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the

Father.”

IT'S HARD TO DENY SO MANY TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (AS SHOWN NEXT) SAYING THE SAME THING IN HEBREWS 1:8.

I PERSONALLY CHALLENGED MRS. JOY PENROSE-DAVIS TO FIND EVEN A QUARTER OF THE NUMBER OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

SAYING OTHERWISE THAN WHAT GOD HIMSELF SAYS IN HEBREWS 1:8 ABOUT JESUS. SHE CAN’T, AND SO HER CASE IS NOT

JUST WOEFULLY LOST, BUT HER BOOK IS A SHOCKING DENIAL OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS VERY FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH. LET’S

EXAMINE THIS SCRIPTURE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS, AND LET IT SPEAK FOR ITSELF… UNASSISTED.

Hebrews 1:8:

(CEV) But God says about his Son, "You are God, and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power

brings about justice.

(ASV) but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the

sceptre of thy kingdom.

(BBE) But of the Son he says, Your seat of power, O God, is for ever and ever; and the rod of your kingdom is a rod

of righteousness.

(Bishops) But vnto the sonne [he sayth] Thy seate O God, [shalbe] for euer and euer: The scepter of thy kyngdome

[is] a scepter of ryghteousnesse.

(Darby) but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of

thy kingdom.

(DRB) But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

(EMTV) But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter

of Your Kingdom.

(ERV) But this is what he said about his Son: "God, your kingdom will last forever and ever. You use your authority

for justice.

(ESV) But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of

your kingdom.

(Geneva) But vnto the Sonne he saith, O God, thy throne is for euer and euer: the scepter of thy kingdome is a

scepter of righteousnes.

(GNB) About the Son, however, God said: "Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever! You rule over your

people with justice.

8

(GW) But God said about his Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a

scepter for justice.

(ISV) But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is a

righteous scepter.

(KJV) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of

thy kingdom.

(LEB) but concerning the Son, "Your throne, O God, is [forever and ever], and the scepter of righteous is the

scepter of your kingdom.

(LITV) but as to the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your

kingdom;

(MKJV) But to the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is the scepter

of Your kingdom.

(Murdock) But of the Son he said: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a righteous sceptre is the sceptre of thy

kingdom.

(RV) but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre

of thy kingdom.

(Vulgate) ad Filium autem thronus tuus Deus in saeculum saeculi et virga aequitatis virga regni tui

(Webster) But to the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the

scepter of thy kingdom.

(YLT) and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy

reign

(WNT) But of His Son, He says, "THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOR EVER AND FOR EVER, AND THE SCEPTRE OF THY

KINGDOM IS A SCEPTRE OF ABSOLUTE JUSTICE.

Point more than adequately made by the Bible itself!

Now, moving on to the other areas in which she contradicts the Bible itself.

2. The Bible presents Jesus as “taking” the “form” of a “servant” and the “form” of man (Phill. 2:5-8)

only at a certain point. Thus Jesus’ ‘servant hood’ is intimately bound up with him being a man, or being

the “second Adam” fulfilling Messianic roles, even today while glorified in heaven! Proper biblical

understanding would realize that under normal circumstances a king’s TRUE SON or “prince” (which

Jesus is called; Is.9:6; Acts 3:15; Acts 5:31) inherits his father’s own ‘sir [family] name’, and is FULLY heir

9

to all that his father or the king owns… including his throne, his titles, his kingdom, his subjects, et al.

That is why Jesus makes plain in John 16:15 even while a man on earth: “All things that the Father hath

are mine”!! Present continuous tense (not future tense)! “ALL” means simply that, and leave’s nothing

out, except for the Father’s own identity as an individual! Now if, as already proven, Jesus RETAINED his

humanity, even while restored to his former glory as a supernatural being (see John 17:5 and Matt.

28:18, then it is understandable why in that context of being human he still presents himself as being

“given” all things as a “servant” of God the Father, who became (and still remains) his “God”, simply

because he became and is even now a man. Thus Jesus certainly has two natures bound up in one

person…i.e. he is a supernatural being with a now restored former heavenly glory, RULING SUPREMELY

AS “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” UPON GOD’S OWN THRONE (Phill. 2:5-11; Rev.3:21), yet

retaining his humanity with all its “servant” roles, and as one glorified as the “first fruits” of redeemed

humanity. This is plainly taught by the Scriptures, yet Mrs. Penrose-Davis book skillfully sought to

denigrate Jesus divine nature by speciously appealing to those Scriptures which relate to either his

limited capacity while on earth as a man, or to his subordinate roles as a man or the Messiah (roles in

which he still operates even today, and into eternity future). This is the core essence of the book’s

problem. And that is the reason for my objection to much of what her book teaches (not all).

Much has been written already by me (see HERE) to show that the Bible teaches that:

*a+ Jesus is “eternal” or is “from everlasting”, despite the book CONTRADICTS the Bible on that fact

[b] Jesus is able to create, and is creator, despite the book CONTRADICTS the Bible on that fact

[c] Jesus is NATURALLY divine by way of inherited traits of the Father Himself “from everlasting” or

“from all eternity”, i.e. he is omnipotent, omniscient, self- existent, and is called “God”, etc., despite the

book CONTRADICTS the Bible on that fact by misapplying his earthly humanity and voluntary

subjection, and or by misunderstanding what it means to be divine (thinking divinity cannot be seen

as “given” or “inherited”)!

[d] Jesus is going to rule universally for all eternity, even after he, in his Messianic role, ceremonially

turns over the redeemed/restored earthly kingdom at “the end” to the Father, despite the book

CONTRADICTS the Bible on that fact

[e] Jesus does not just have two natures, but is today both king and priest at the same time on God’s

throne, as a person who retained his humanity, and hence in the context of still being human he was

depicted as being “exalted” or “promoted”, even while depicted as restored to former glory as a

formerly divine supernatural being (John 17:5). The book also CONTRADICTS the Bible on that fact

[f] Jesus was prayed to by a Spirit filled disciple (Acts 7:55-60), despite the book CONTRADICTS the Bible

on that fact

[g] Jesus himself “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” the Father (Phill.2:5, 6)), despite the

book CONTRADICTS the Bible on that fact

10

*h+ Jesus is called “Everlasting Father” even now (Is. 9:6) because, as a man, he was pictured as given

“children” (Heb. 2:9-16), and because as his own Spirit as God’s divine Son (Rom. 8:9) is responsible for

“begetting” us spiritually (and remember, it is always a “father” who “begets”), despite the book

CONTRADICTS the Bible on that fact

[h] A human family was, from the very beginning, “imaged” after the Godhead in many ways

(Gen. 1:26-28; Rom. 1:19, 20), and this tells us why the Father and Son they are one in nature,

why they have a hierarchal structure as a family (i.e. the Father the “head”), and why they

operate together as co-creators (i.e. co-producers), as co-rulers, as co-providers, etc. (all

realities evident in ideal human families; see explanations HERE), despite the book also

CONTRADICTS the Bible on that fact!

It is upon this basis (i.e. the outlined foregoing) that I cannot but repeat what I said in my summary

points in part 1 of my “book review”: “I reject the MAIN premise of the book, and frankly denounce

it as not just misleading reading material, but a HERETICAL book in terms of the TRUE Christian

faith.”

SECTION B: A BRIEF RESPONSE TO AUTHOR’S ONLINE “RESPONSE” TO MY “BOOK REVIEW PART 1”

Now let me briefly respond to Mrs. Penrose-Davis’ online “response” to part 1 of my book review (see

my “book review” part 1 here). Her “response” can be read and assessed here

Dear readers, Mrs. Penrose-Davis’ “response” to part 1 of my “review” described me and my review in

the following words:

“His so-called review is nothing more than the biased opinion and the ranting and ravings of a

closed, deceived, indoctrinated mind, parading in the garb of centuries of theological error. This

indoctrinated mind forcefully holds others in deception and relentlessly maligns those who dare to

challenge it.”

I am not bothered in the least by these emotive adjectives, but I ask any reader to calmly and

objectively look again at this part 2 of my review (where CLEAR evidence of “contradictions” in her

book is now made available) and consider the issues for himself. That’s all I ask. Her “response” to

my review in part 1 has simply repeated the same “problems” and misguided viewpoints evident in

the book (i.e. the mixing of truth and error, which I have already addressed here), and so I won’t

bother to take on her “response” point by point. It’s neither practical nor necessary! God’s TRUE

sheep hears his voice and will respond to FULL truth when it becomes evident (not just portions).

Her thesis in her book stands already refuted, many times over, just by the one simple Scripture in

Hebrews 1:8. I say, live with it Mrs. Penrose-Davis!

11

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 Father’s 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 book…nothing 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!

Incidentally, recently Mrs. Penrose-Davis said (ELSEWHERE) that "Jesus’ glory is INCOMPARABLE to that

of the Father's". Father, forgive her, for she knows not what she does. How can that be if Jesus is said to

have the "FULNESS" of the Father's “divine nature” or "Godhead" (Col. 2:9), since "FULNESS" means

nothing less than the full measure? If Jesus is declared to be the “EXPRESS image” and the very

"BRIGHTNESS of His [the Father's] glory" (Heb. 1:2, 3), then every act of Mrs. Penrose-Davis limiting or

downgrading Jesus' own glory, is the very same act of lowering that of the Father himself, and to the

same degree! See her problem then dear reader, in light of what 1 John 2:23, 24 warn us about? I do,

and hence why I am so relentless to warn her and her "fans" of it. Ever remember that: 1 John 2:23

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath

the Father also.

Denying the Son is not only in denying he is "the Christ" (as Muslims, who are Mrs. Davis’ biggest fans

online, certainly do), but in 'robbing' him of anything he really is as God's Son (the one TRUE Son of his

very being)… and ultimately resulting in denying the Father Himself as being a TRUE Father of a TRUE

Son! That is Mrs. Penrose-Davis' mortal danger! I continue to pray for her and the “fans” her book will

be misleading!