Compiled by Derrick Gillespie

As I begin this rebuttal of Mrs. Davis' "Response" (see here or here) to my initial critique of her 2011 book, "Jesus Christ is Not God" (see my initial critique here :, I must first respond to where she states in her response that: "His critique is so full of holes that there would be nothing left of it, if it were printed on paper. His entire long-winded tirade makes no sense. ABSOLUTELY, NO SENSE, WHATSOEVER !" - page 1 The thing is, seeing that the subject matter is the nature of Jesus, the "only begotten Son" of God (John 3:16), I am reminded of the words of the Bible itself as it concerns preaching Jesus, and presenting the Biblical truths about him. It plainly stated:

"1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks [i.e. Gentiles] *FOOLISHNESS"!! "1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are *FOOLISHNESS unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

But the question is, why would the things of God (or related to God's nature), and things related to Jesus (God's "only begotten Son") be first a "STUMBLING BLOCK" to the Jews, and "FOOLISHNESS" to Gentiles, and all their appeal to logic?

I'll tell you why, straight from the Bible itself! As it concerns Jesus the Messiah, and him crucified: “…kings shall shut their mouths at him [or will be dumbfounded]: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.” - Isaiah 52:15 As it concerns God, and the things related to God, the Bible makes plain: "Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? Job 11:8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? Job 11:9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."

Thus, am not surprised that as I point to ALL the truths presented by the Bible about Jesus, and about him in relation to God the Father, Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis exclaims that "IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!! I quite understand!! To the Jews, Jesus being the Son of God, "the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor. 15:47) was a "stumbling block", and so they exclaimed, even as they were dumbfounded by the truth that was hidden from them initially (see Eph. 3:45, 9):

"John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God [i.e. divine]."

No wonder the Jews today reject Isaiah 9:6 as referring to Christ as "the mighty God", and reject Hebrews 1:8 (written to them, the Hebrews) as being the truth that God described His own Son as "God", and that God the Father attributed the creation to be the work of Jesus' "own hands" on his behalf (Hebrews 1:10-12). "IT MAKES NO SENSE, ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER", as trumpeted by Mrs. Davis today!! To Gentiles, with their confidence in logic and education, Jesus was deemed "foolishness", because of the unimaginable and "illogical" realities that is found in this one person. All Mrs. Davis is doing is echoing the sentiments of those who would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah; that many will be dumbfounded... misguided Church members included. Oh sure, I expect (more like predict) Mrs. Davis to respond by saying it’s my viewpoints and interpretations that “make no sense whatsoever” and not what the Bible says, but did you honestly expect her to say anything else, dear reader? My job is this rebuttal is to show that

what I do say or said, which seems to be so ridiculous or foolishness, is actually grounded in the Word, and so in making it out to be nonsense then one is in effect saying the same about the Bible's teaching. That is what I aim to do in this rebuttal.

Keep that in mind dear reader as I present the counter arguments against Mrs. Davis charges of my presenting what the Bible says to be simply (in her words) "MAKING NO SENSE. ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER"!!

Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis claims that my initial critique of her book "makes no sense; absolutely, no sense, whatsoever"!! Thing is, the response she tendered, ironically, is quite reflective of this same charge she levels at my critique, and so it reminds me of the adage : "he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones". Proof? Let's look at, for instance, her attempt to defend her view that Jesus is a creature (not the Creator, like the Father). Her response on that issue was so mixed-up that it makes "absolutely, no sense, whatsoever"!! Here are her mixed-up, confused, and often contradictory statements: SHE SAID ON PAGE 3 OF HER RESPONSE: "Beings exist by two means – Self-existence or Creation. There is no in-between; there is no other way. If Jesus, therefore, is not self-existent it means that he was created...Like the rest of creation, Jesus was brought into being by the Father." COMMENT: This statement from her is unequivocal and all embracing. It is a CLEAR statement from her that Jesus, like all other beings in the universe, *except for the Father, exists as a result of creation. Now, by that argumentation, any being resulting from creation is a CREATURE!! That is plain and simple syllogism, based on her statements!! By now saying there is no "in between" and there is no "other way" to exist than by "self existence" or by "creation" then there is no need for her to qualify anything about Jesus being "born" or "begotten", since that already falls under the ambit of *HER definition of "creation", and hence Jesus, to her, is a CREATURE!! No escaping that fact!! This she further declared to be her teaching by saying: "Now, if Jesus came into existence by being “born” or being “begotten” that does not negate the fact that he is a created being. Jesus being created is confirmed by the Scriptures....Jesus being “born” or “begotten” cannot be presented as proof that he was not created"- pg. 3 Here now is evidence of her double talk and mixed-up defense on the following page of her response

(page 4): "I did not say that Jesus being God’s “only begotten Son” means that he is a creature. That statement by Mr. Gillespie is simply not true. In chapter six of my book, I explain that the term “begotten” relates to being born, hence, Jesus being the Father’s “begotten” is an indication that he was procreated or “born” of the Father but not physical birth as we understand it" SEE THE CONFUSION AND CONTRADICTION JUST TWO PAGES APART IN HER RESPONSE? Just one page before (on page 3) she declares unequivocally that if Jesus is not self-existent like the Father then he exists by creation; with no "in between". So what's her problem with just accepting that, by her own thesis, for Jesus to be deemed as "begotten" or "born" still means he is a creature by reason of the fact that, by her reasoning, a creature is the product of creation? She seeks to oppose me even when there is no reason/need to oppose. That's what "makes no sense”; “absolutely, no sense, whatsoever"!! She regularly accuses me of misrepresenting her words, when she herself is evidenced as often misreading what I said, and then turning around to oppose what I never said. Here's an example on this same issue under consideration! On page 4 she quotes me as saying about her thesis (note my words carefully): "...your thesis, because of its failure to sufficiently/properly research, properly define words, and properly apply exegesis, it has reduced Jesus to being just like all other “sons” of God: a CREATURE !!” Immediately after quoting the above from me, here is her response which "makes no sense"; "absolutely, no sense whatsoever". She proceeded to say: "Contrary to Mr. Gillespie’s claim, I have not reduced Jesus to being just like all other sons. In my book, I explain that Jesus is the highest of God’s creation. On page 26, in reference to Jesus I said, “The Personal Word, however, is unique, because unlike angels and mankind he is the Word Personified. He is one-of-akind. There is no other son like him”. How can anyone having read this statement make such an accusation unless their agenda is to MISLEAD and DECEIVE? Let me also be quick to explain that nowhere in my book have I referred to Jesus as a “CREATURE”. - pg. 4 Why does the above make no sense whatsoever? For two reasons: 1. If you note my quoted statement that she was responding to, you will see I made plain in what CONTEXT her thesis made Jesus like all other sons of God, i.e. making him "a CREATURE"!! For someone so ready and quick to talk about me misrepresenting her words and having an "agenda" to "mislead and deceive" she should be careful NOT to misrepresent my words. Nowhere did I say her thesis "reduced Jesus to just being like other sons" (full stop), but rather "it has reduced Jesus to being just like all other “sons” of God: *a CREATURE !!”. Big difference!! Her not reading carefully, and taking into account every word used, so she can be able to properly respond to CONTEXT, leaves her unable to properly critique. What "makes no sense"; "absolutely no sense whatsoever" is for her to speak from a position of such assumed 'authority' when she fail to even read properly, or worse, research word definitions properly to

be able to accurately exegete! 2. Her seeking to make the words "creation" and "begetting" seem synonymous not only denies the truth in the dictionary, but denies even the reality of Church history, where it was plain that Jesus being considered as truly "begotten" by some, as opposed to being seen as "created" by others, drew distinct lines of demarcation between historic Christian doctrines on the nature of Jesus (i.e. among Arians, semi-Arians and Trinitarians). Why was this line of demarcation? Because rational thinking people, who accept what the dictionary and proper use of language dictate, all recognized the DIFFERENCE between Jesus being deemed as generically/literally "begotten" of (or reproduced by) the Father before coming to earth (Heb. 1:3), as opposed to Christians being SPIRITUALLY "begotten" of the Father in the figurative or metaphorical sense, and as opposed to the Father "creating" humans from the dust of the ground. All rational thinking people recognized that a human parent generically "begetting" (reproducing) a child, is far removed from the meaning of "creating" a "creature" by hand. For Mrs. Joy Penrose-Davis to make it seem that there is no difference is certainly what "makes no sense; absolutely, no sense, whatsoever"! All dictionaries make plain the distinction between the words "creating" and "reproducing" or "manufacturing" and "begetting", and this explains why I made plain in my initial critique of Mrs. Davis' book (see: "A 'creature' is a new thing externally manufactured that never existed in its properties before, but a reproduction is a biological PROCREATION from a pre-existing prototype (big difference sister PenroseDavis), and is the means by which a parent naturally/biologically brings about a copy of himself and his pre-existing properties. Since no other son is said to be God’s “only begotten Son”, or is said to be THE “express image” or “the exact copy of his person” (Heb. 1:1-3), then Joy Davis, it stands to irrefutable reason that Jesus was a NATURAL reproduction of His Father before time began, i.e. “from everlasting” or from all eternity (past), and hence he is NOT a “creation” or the external manufacturing of properties never in existence before, but is of the divine specie before time began (and hence is “from everlasting” as well; Micah 5:2). Yes, he is of the divine specie, and hence is himself like his Father in terms of divine specie; not in terms of status of divine headship or leadership (a matter God demonstrated faintly in principle, in the “image of God” in man, when he made Eve to come directly from Adam’s substance, with Adam as the one true head of the first family and the entire human race). And this principle is what confirms that Jesus is God in nature, yes, God in highest nature, just like Eve was Man in highest nature, because she came DIRECTLY from Adam’s substance. And yet Jesus is not the person called God, the Father, despite inheriting his name and nature as TRUE son’s naturally do of their literal fathers [see Heb. 1:3-6], just like Eve was not the person called Adam, but was called Adam in name (Gen. 5:1, 2), and just like you, Joy Penrose-Davis, and your children, if any, naturally/rightfully acquired the name of your husband, “Mr. Davis”. Why? This is because you both are of the same human species, and are one as a literal family. I wonder if you see yourself as inferior to your husband as head, or see yourself unlike him in specie." The above is on record and makes perfect sense to rational thinking people!! Jesus is the "only begotten Son" in the sense of Jesus being generically and biologically the only divine Son in the entire universe, i.e. in the truly biologically "begotten" sense from the divine Father. What "makes no sense";

"absolutely, no sense whatsoever" is for Joy Penrose-Davis to insist on the word "only" to mean one thing when speaking of the Father being the "only" TRUE God (i.e. no other DIVINE prototype involved), and then deny the real meaning of that same word "only" when it appears in the expression "only begotten Son". Here again her inconsistency is seen (on page 3 of her response to my critique), when she said: "This may surprise you but Jesus Christ is no longer the “only begotten” of the Father (John 3:16). If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you too are now “begotten” (1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 5:18). But not only are you now begotten, you are also re-created and re-born (2 Cor. 5:17; John 3: 3)" Keep in mind that John 3:16 was written by John after many SPIRITUALLY "begotten" human sons of God ALREADY existed, and so the sense in which Jesus would be the "ONLY begotten Son" would have held true long before and long after the expression "ONLY begotten Son" was used...indeed it would apply for all time. And yet Joy Davis now denies this truth, by confusing the concept of the SPIRITUALLY "begotten" sons of God with the concept of His LITERALLY or generically/biologically "begotten" Son; His "ONLY begotten Son" in that sense "from everlasting" or from all eternity (see Micah 5:2)!! This new heresy from Mrs. Davis is what "makes no sense"; "absolutely, no sense whatsoever", dear reader!! But what is plain is that Mrs. Davis continues to invent new heresies, even as she seemingly continues to idolize her book and its faulty thesis; seeking more and more to make it appear infallible, when it is plain it denies certain fundamental truths of orthodox Christianity. That is what "makes no sense"; "absolutely, no sense whatsoever"!!

What “makes no sense; absolutely, no sense, whatsoever” is for Mrs. Joy Penrose Davis to eventually give acknowledgement to the fact that Jesus is the Fathers offspring by "procreation" or by “birth”, and then the whole premise of her book and her rebuttals is to deny what the words mean when they apply to Jesus. Her words were in her response: "Jesus being the Father’s “begotten” is an indication that he was *procreated or “born” of the Father but not physical birth as we understand it."- pg. 3 What an UNWITTING admission to the truth!!! The very word “procreate” means to “reproduce” or to carry out a “reproduction”. Now, without Mrs. Davis realizing it, the very word “reproduction” (the synonym for "procreation") means: “to produce new individuals of the *same *kind by a sexual or asexual process” and “to make a representation as an image or copy of” (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary).

It makes no sense for her to admit Jesus is God's PRE-INCARNATE Son by *procreation or reproduction (the real meaning of procreation), even while she has been denying that Jesus is “the exact copy” of his person, and yet the very word reproduction (the synonym for procreation) in the Oxford Dictionary means “reproducing members of the same species” and to reproduce means “to produce a *copy or representation of”. Both Hebrews 1:3 and the dictionary definition of procreation, reproduction and or real begetting makes plain that my explanations of JESUS makes perfect sense; that of he being reproduced by the Father (asexually of course) as the same species that the Father is, that is, DIVINE, “from everlasting” or from all eternity (Micah 5:2). So I am fully vindicated by the Bible regarding my thesis, especially with God the Father himself making plain that Jesus is “God” (or divine like himself) in Heb. 1:8, since Jesus, unlike the angels or any other being, is the “express image” or exact representation or copy of his person, and has, by INHERITANCE, gotten a “more excellent name” (Heb. 1:4), i.e. “God” and "the Lord"; "the Lord from heaven" ( 1 Cor.15:47). Jesus himself felt it “not robbery to be equal (Greek, "isos", or “same”) with God” (i.e. a copy of his properties or person). Before coming man he was the same in specie with the Father, since, of course, he was procreated or reproduced and hence was in “the form of God” (a stark contrast to later taking the form of man). See again Philippians 2:5-8. What makes absolutely no sense is for me to be saying the same thing that "procreation" is meant to convey (the very word chosen by Mrs. Davis to speak of Jesus), and yet Mrs. Davis opposes the very meaning of what she eventually admitted applies to Jesus’ existence. "Makes no sense; absolutely, no sense, whatsoever"!! With the above described reality I certainly don’t need to take on Mrs. Davis response point by point. It is neither necessary nor practical, since the superstructure of her argument has already been proven false, and so the reader can intelligently discover what does not ring true in all the points being made by her in her rebuttal or “response” to my initial critique of her book.

As a man Jesus IN HUMILITY treated himself as nothing like what God is, not even willing to accept that he was “good”, but declared or acknowledged that ‘there is none good but one; God'! See Matt. 19:16, 17. Now if we should reason the way Mrs. Davis does, then Jesus should probably not be considered "good", since in all the things that the Father is declared to be the “only” one, or none other like him, not even Jesus is so qualified by procreation or natural inheritance to be deemed such. But I have discovered that in ALL things the Father is declared to be the “only” one so qualified, or the “one true” one, this is in terms of he being the ORIGINAL PROTOTYPE of those properties, BUT Jesus His Son is the “express image” of that prototype, or was procreated or reproduced to be the very *copy of those properties FROM EVERLASTING or from all eternity!! This includes Jesus being also truly good, also empowered to be the Savior, also King of kings or Potentate, also first and last, also God by nature, etc., despite the Father is declared to be the only or true one in all these properties; i.e. he is the prototype in all these!! Mrs. Davis has shot herself in the foot many times over to eventually admit that Jesus exists by “procreation” (OR REPRODUCTION BY DEFINITION), and her case is more than lost because this

vindicates my counter-thesis to hers, whether she knows it or not, or would be willing to concede. Her efforts to rescue an already lost cause are quite understandable…it’s only human!! But it "makes no sense; absolutely, no sense, whatsoever" to continue to "kick against the pricks". But I fear she will continue to so do. I predict that she certainly will! WITH THE FOREGOING ESTABLISHED, I ONLY NOW NEED TO BRIEFLY REVISIT MRS. DAVIS' KEY POINTS OF CONTENTION, AND SHOW THEM TO BE GROUNDLESS, WHEN ONE CONSIDERS WHAT "PROCREATION" REALLY MEAN!


Mrs. Joy Penrose Davis makes much ado about her so-called "equality test" between the Father and Jesus, and insist that if Jesus is not equal with the Father "in all things" then he is not what "procreation" deems he REALLY is, i.e. he's of the same species as the Father, and a copy or "express image" or exact representation of his person. Not only is her denial of the real meaning of *procreation making absolutely no sense whatsoever, but also her comparing Jesus on earth as a man with God the Father in his divinity, or her assuming that to be the same species means one must have all individual features of another. Let's look at how nonsensical that "equality test" invented by Mrs. Davis really is. Jesus, who was in the "form of God" (Phillipians 2:5, 6) and who "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", "TOOK the form of a servant" when he became a genuine human, and hence BECAME even lower than angels (in status, and form); beings he had created on the Father's behalf (Col. 1:16,17): The Bible makes plain what Jesus eventually did: "Phillipians 2:7 But [Jesus] made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

So while Jesus was on earth "he made himself of no reputation" and "*TOOK the form of a servant". Noticing the words "took the form of a servant" and especially taking notice of the words "made himself of no reputation" will make a number of things become clear, absolutely clear:

a] No wonder Jesus (in “making himself of no reputation”) did not even accept he was "good" (Matt. 19:16, 17), despite he was naturally good to the core of his very being. He always pointed back to God the Father as the prototype of all that he was, either in character as a man, or even what he was by specie in his pre-incarnation.

b] It "makes no sense; absolutely, no sense, whatsoever" for Mrs. Davis to compare Jesus in his condescended state, while "making himself of no reputation", or while "humbling himself" while being in the "form of a servant" that he "took" (notice "took"), and for her to declare that this proves Jesus "failed" the so-called "equality test" with the Father while in that form!! It is a rather silly comparison if you ask me, and speaks to the illogical approach of Mrs. Davis' authorship (am not saying Mrs. Davis is a silly person, but her "equality test" and approach to this subject of Jesus' true nature is actually quite silly in many regards). For her to then make it seem that subjection means inferiority in specie is another shortsighted view from her, since she herself is forever subjected to her husband (earlier she was subjected to her earthly father), yet she is plainly equally of the same specie with both her husband and her earthly father (keeping in mind her father *procreated or reproduced her as a copy of his human *properties; not duplicating him as a being). And while she does not have all the individual features of her father or her husband, yet she is fully human; not a sub-human species!! This should tell her a lot, but alas!! When Jesus spoke as a man on earth he often spoke while fulfilling the role he assumed, that of "making himself of no reputation", and operating in the humbled form of "a servant", and so for Mrs. Davis to, first, ignore this reality and point to Jesus saying, WHILE A MAN, that "the Father is greater than I", or all things were taught him by his Father, or that he was obeying all the commands of his Father, and, second, then set up an "equality test" in that comparative state of Jesus' self-humiliation "makes no sense; absolutely, no sense, whatsoever"!!

Even when Jesus was restored his former glory that he had given up (i.e. when Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God"), Jesus (because of the ongoing salvation plan) was/is still operating in many respects as "the Christ" (the human "Son"), or the glorified human that I spoke of here ( , and hence the Bible depicts him (as he now is today) as having received all from the Father, and as still subjected to the Father as both a man (the human “Son”) and a being restored his former glory!! This is quite logical and understandable, and does nothing to defeat the truth that Jesus is the same specie as the Father's PROCREATED Son by REPRODUCTION "from everlasting" or from all eternity past (Micah 5:2).

For Mrs. Davis to point to the notion of Jesus, the 'Given', not being the same specie (or of the same nature) as the God the Father, the 'Giver', ignores, for instance, that even among humans, princes are given everything they have by their human father, the king, and yet these princes, by way of heir-ship, are the same that their royal father is (both in terms of specie and royalty), even exercising the king's full prerogative as sovereign (whether cojointly or later by TRUE inheritance); NATURALLY owning his throne, his kingdom, his servants or subjects, and wielding the same nature and level of power that the king who procreated the prince wields. The same principle logically applies to Jesus as the Father's procreated Son and his Heir in *ALL things (see John 16:15 and Heb. 1:1-8). That is precisely why we find that almost every title of the Father is somewhere recorded in the Bible as applying to Jesus, including "the mighty God", "the Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6), and explains why Jesus exercises the prerogatives of God the Father in every way on his behalf (as Creator, as Sustainer of the universe, as King of Kings, as First and Last or Alpha and Omega, as the Savior of the world, as Judge, as Giver of final rewards, as Resurrector of the dead, as Lord, et al).

Without engaging all the counterarguments of Mrs. Davis (that is neither necessary, nor practical; I have more important things to engage my time), it has been shown, by highlighting the more glaring weaknesses in her response to my initial critique, that the superstructure of her thesis has failed. Period! God's true sheep hears his voice, and accepts ALL of his Word (not just portions, as Mrs. Davis has sought to do)!!

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful