ARTICLE GUIDE
At a Glance
A robust defense of the Christian faith requires a clear definition of the exact nature of its opposition. If one asks the average congregant to define the modern critics of Christianity, a specific assumption inevitably emerges: most believe that critics of the Bible offer a unified and coherent alternative to the historic doctrine of the incarnation.
Read moreShow less
What This Study Explores
Biblical Theology • Canonical Interpretation • The Promise-Plan of God
Direct Answer: Do modern critics of the incarnation offer one coherent alternative to historic Christology?
No. Secular developmental theories, Islamic prophetology, Unitarian readings, Arian or Jehovah’s Witness accounts, Latter-day Saint cosmology, and revisionist Christian proposals make mutually incompatible claims about Jesus. Their disagreement does not prove orthodoxy, but it prevents “the critics say” from functioning as a single explanatory position.
Responsible apologetics maps each claim accurately and tests it against historical evidence, Second Temple Jewish context, and the cumulative New Testament portrayal of Jesus. The central orthodox claim is precise: the eternal, uncreated Son shares the divine identity and became fully human for redemption.
Key Claims
- Alternative Christologies disagree about Jesus’ preexistence, creaturehood, divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, and saving role.
- Contradictory alternatives must be evaluated individually rather than treated as a united scholarly consensus.
- The rapid rise of Jesus-devotion challenges models that require a long, purely legendary evolution toward divinity.
- Jewish divine-agency traditions provide important context but do not automatically explain the full devotional pattern.
- Orthodox Christology depends on cumulative biblical evidence, not merely the failure of competing accounts.
Interpretive Context
Categorizing positions can clarify debate, but “opposition” should not turn scholars or religious communities into a hostile monolith. Internal diversity exists within secular scholarship, Islam, Unitarianism, Latter-day Saint thought, and contemporary Christianity. Survey findings also depend on question wording and should not be used as a substitute for theological understanding. Contradictory rivals can all be false while orthodoxy still requires positive proof.
The map of rival claims is apologetically valuable when each alternative is described in its strongest recognizable form. Contrasts among adoptionist, Unitarian, Islamic, Latter-day Saint, liberal, and secular accounts reveal genuinely different answers to Jesus’ identity, but the Christian case finally turns on the canonical pattern of incarnation, divine prerogatives, worship, death, and resurrection.
Selected Scholarship
- Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics — maps rival claims and presents a cumulative biblical defense.
- Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? — examines the early historical emergence of Jesus-devotion.
- Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God — a prominent developmental account of early Christology.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel — argues that earliest Christology includes Jesus within divine identity.
- Robert L. Millet, A Different Jesus? — presents a Latter-day Saint account of Christ that enables direct comparison with Nicene claims about divine identity and incarnation.
Scripture Connections
Psalm 110:1; Genesis 3; Genesis 1:1–2
Continue on Substack
The complete article and its available video material remain on Rabbit Room Apologetics at Substack.
Originally published April 22, 2026. This WordPress page is a discovery guide; the complete article is hosted on Substack.