Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book for discussing the Trinity!
Review: "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" was written by an engineer. That being the case, and knowing several engineers myself, I can say this book is not the most eloquently written book on the subject. (Thus, the four stars) But even such, this book is a fine study aide. The advantage of this book versus others is the shear amount of scriptural arguments the author discusses. It's not the kind of book one would sit down and read straight through like one would with Rubenstein's "When Jesus Became God" or Buzzard's "The Trinity: Christianities Self-Inflicted Wound." Holt's work is more of a handbook where one can quickly find in the index most any scripture Trinitarians use and turn there for an immediate answer. Moving through this book is a little slower than others because the author argues to an in-depth degree on each point, applying scripture after scripture to build his case. Additionally, this book provides powerful logic and scriptures throughout showing Jesus is not God. I recommend marking these with a Post-it note for any future discussion because the questions and scriptures he raises are sure to cause thinking Trinitarians to pause. If you want an over-all view of the Trinity and its history and development, along with some refutation of it, see the above mentioned books. If you are about to sit down and discuss the truthfulness of the Trinity with someone, set those aside and grab Holt's book as there are none more useful in providing answers for Trinitarian scriptures and raising questions that will cause even the most astute Trinitarian to seriously evaluate his faith.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent book for discussing the Trinity!
Review: "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" was written by an engineer. That being the case, and knowing several engineers myself, I can say this book is not the most eloquently written book on the subject. (Thus, the four stars) But even such, this book is a fine study aide. The advantage of this book versus others is the shear amount of scriptural arguments the author discusses. It's not the kind of book one would sit down and read straight through like one would with Rubenstein's "When Jesus Became God" or Buzzard's "The Trinity: Christianities Self-Inflicted Wound." Holt's work is more of a handbook where one can quickly find in the index most any scripture Trinitarians use and turn there for an immediate answer. Moving through this book is a little slower than others because the author argues to an in-depth degree on each point, applying scripture after scripture to build his case. Additionally, this book provides powerful logic and scriptures throughout showing Jesus is not God. I recommend marking these with a Post-it note for any future discussion because the questions and scriptures he raises are sure to cause thinking Trinitarians to pause. If you want an over-all view of the Trinity and its history and development, along with some refutation of it, see the above mentioned books. If you are about to sit down and discuss the truthfulness of the Trinity with someone, set those aside and grab Holt's book as there are none more useful in providing answers for Trinitarian scriptures and raising questions that will cause even the most astute Trinitarian to seriously evaluate his faith.
Rating: 
Summary: Round and round we go
Review: 2 stars for effort. Any book written on the outrageously controversial subject of the Trinity that uses pure Scripture is biased from the start. For anyone choosing not to hold the creedo of Faith espoused by the concept, using Scripture gives appearance of objectivity and rational thought. However, both stances are invalid because these are strawmen arguments aiming to discredit either side of the issue through ease of collapse. Thus, allegedly destroying basis for triune-God theist and the one-God theist. Anyone wishing clarity on the issues of triune-god concept needs to fortify with Early Christian history and perhaps worldview of mystical concepts.
Such easy statements as "Jesus is God" readily are knocked down, but do not address the core, and simple, concepts that the early church bishops (elders) found they held in common--a standard, or orthodoxy. In divine form:
1. the Son of God held attributes in common with the Father
2. the Son of God appeared to have power in common with the Father
3. the Son of God held knowledge in common with the Father By the way, all this Jesus talk and not one reviewer mentions the HS (or third leg)--interesting? Also, as becomes readily apparent, the author has a bias in his own views of what the Trinity should mean--the definition is obscure to anyone with understanding of orthodox Christianity and comes directly from Brooklyn HQ. Most students of Western dogma would readily agree that Son is not Father, but what's the difference between having a big G in Heaven and two gods in Heaven--a big G and a little g? You're still polytheistic! A "mighty god" that doesn't get any prayers or worship--how 'mighty' is that? The standardizing statements against heresy simply summarize the attributes and abilities of F, S and HS. The statement set a "line in the sand" against the bold step toward gnosticism (ie: Jesus was not really flesh and blood) and modalism (ie: Jesus=Jehovah)--Shibboleth/Sibboleth.
Rating: 
Summary: A Classic Textbook on Logical Fallacies
Review: After purchasing the book, I was sad to encounter so many gross logical falllacies throughout. Some of the fallacies committed by the author include straw man, equivocation, question begging, stacking the deck, ad hominem and down right hypocrisy. An example of such hypocrisy can be found on pp. 30-32 of his book. The author tries to refute Trinitarian claims that similar titles and functions shared by the Father and the Son indicate that Jesus is God (yet not the Father) by citing examples of others who also seem to share similar titles and functions with God. Yet the author spends 18 pages in his Appendix B trying to prove that Jesus must be the same person as Michael since they both share similar titles and functions!!! Furthermore, after distracting readers by providing examples of others that shared similar titles and functions (as if this somehow addresses the Trinitarian position) the author concludes: "...Having the same title does not make them the SAME PERSON." p. 31 capital emphasis mine One finds the author stating this often throughout his book. Yet here the author commits two fallacies. First, he assumes what he has yet to prove and then proceeds to read this unproven assumption into the text. For instance, the author has already concluded that the Father ALONE is God. Therefore, to say that Jesus is God is equivalent to saying that Jesus is the same person as the Father. This leads to the second fallacy, namely straw man. Seeing that the author is aware that Trinitarians do not teach that Jesus and God (meaning the Father, since to the author the Father alone is God) are the same person, to then argue as we do believe this and then procced to "refute" it is simply dishonest to say the least. The author has confused Trinitarianism with Modalism. The author has also ignored dozens of passages that Trinitarians use to establish their position. Nor does he comment on passages which states that Christ existed before time and is distinct from creation or that he has priests serving him as they do the Father. Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:24- cf. Romans 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:8, James 2:1- cf. Psalm 24:7-10, Zechariah 2:5; 2 Timothy 1:9, Jude 25- cf. Titus 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3- cf. 5:20; Revelation 5:13; 14:4; 20:6; 22:3 It seems that the author has chosen to ignore passages that would pose major difficulties for his position. The author also failed to produce a single explicit reference from Jesus, or the inspired biblical authors, where he denies that he is God. He has quoted verses where he has ASSUMED prove that Jesus is not God. Yet nowhere is it ever stated that Jesus is not God, especially in contexts where there was a golden opportunity for either Jesus or the writers to say he was not. Cf. John 10:33-39 And the passages that do call him God, the author either unsuccesfully tries to circumvent or simply ignores. Cf. Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 Much more could be said but I have said enough. I do recommend that the readers get Rob Bowman's books on JWs, and Ron Rhodes book "Reasoning From the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses", as well as Robert A . Morey's Trinity-Evidence and Issues and compare the arguments. The readers can see for themselves how Mr. Holt often twists what these men have written and proceeds to "refute" their points. Yet, when one reads the sources for themselves one will see that he has only managed to misrepresent their writings. I do appreciate this book since I will use it as a tool for my class in demonstrating the shallowness and poor exegeis of non-Trinitarian arguments, and how to easily refute them. And in answer to the Catholic who wrote, this book fails to refute Sola Scriptura. By God's soverign grace Sola Scriptura still passes the tests posed to it and remains God's sole infallible rule of faith!
Rating:
Summary: FOR IN CHRIST DWELLS THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD (Col. 2:9)
Review: Arians, don't claim victory yet. Running circles over straw men is hardly a way to validate metaphysics. Given Brian Holt's bias as a non-Trinitarian seeking to confirm his heterodox views, this book hardly manages to maintain the facade of objective scrutiny of both viewpoints (his stated purpose), but rather blatantly misrepresents the apostolic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, a factor that facilitates the half-informed to buy into his anathemic worldview. Texts in clear support of the Trinity are shown without their context, facilitating their dismissal as is the case with Titus 1:3 (Titus 3:3-6 uses the exact same grammatical structure, but this is predictably not noted). First of all, some contend that the seeming vast amounts of texts that "disprove" Christ's divinity are reason to claim victory. Truth is not a majority contest -many verses can easily be misrepresented- but rather stands on the grounds of sound exegesis and scriptural harmony. I wasn't surprised at the grammatical acrobatics over John 1:1 and treatment of verses such as Col. 2:9. He conveniently ignores John 1:2,3 "He was with God IN THE BEGINNING (not SINCE), ALL THINGS (universe, angels, etc.) came into being through Him (including Himself?), and apart from Him NOTHING WAS MADE THAT HAS BEEN MADE." (Read this carefully, Mr. Bill). Can a creation will himself into being, or be present at his creation? Or how about John 5:18, where the Apostle correctly notes (and the Jews understood) that the Son IS EQUAL WITH GOD? Read also Revelation 1:7,8, 17,18 with Rev. 22:12,13 which clearly demonstrate The Son's equality with the Father; both share the same titles, and hence authority. There is no getting around the fact that Jesus Christ is the almighty, coeternal Son of God. Mr. BILL, read your texts in light of each other, not your preconceptions. Why not read all of Hebrews 1? Heb. 1:3 states "He is the RADIANCE OF HIS GLORY and the EXACT REPRESENTATION of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." As the Nicene Creed eloquently states: "Light of Light, True God of True God." As for the verses regarding unity amongst Christians and God as shown in Col. 2:10, Eph. 3:19, among others, these refer to THEOSIS, whereby as Christians we mystically partake of unity with the divine nature (John 17:22,23; Rom. 8:14-17; 2 Pet. 1:3,4 et al) Given the opportunity I would go on, but space is limited. Besides scriptural exegesis, one must study the history and writing of the early Church to see what THEY believed. Figures such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome and Irenaeus received their teaching directly from the Apostles (John and possibly Peter, among others) and predictably defended the Deity of Jesus Christ and His bodily Resurrection on the third day. Even heresies such as the Gnostics and ebionites maintained that he was either a docetic god or an anointed man, but never a created celestial being or an angel as argued by Mr. Holt and Jehovah's Witnesses. Interestingly, Arius' apostasy DOES NOT PREDATE THE FOURTH CENTURY, A significant reason why the Nicene Creed was not ratified until then. If you seek validation for apostasy and heresy, you might enjoy this book. For those interested in the beliefs of the Apostles and the Church they established by God's grace I recommend reading THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS: GREEK TEXTS AND ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS edited by Michael W. Holmes, EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY and McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. And of course, always study and drink from God's Word. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
Rating: 
Summary: Sola Scripture leads to incorrect conclusion
Review: As a Catholic I have come to appreciate the truths that come from the Church our savior Jesus set up some 2000 years ago. Holt's book has made me appreciate this even more. Until Protestants accept the fact that Sola Scripture (SS) cannot lead to a true understanding of God, they will continue to be misled and confused. This fact could not be brought out any clearer than reading this book. Brian Holt has searched the scriptures in an effort to understand the nature of Christ. While he has not considered every scripture supporting Christ's deity, he considers a great deal of them; more perhaps than any other non-Trinitarian book. He answers these scriptures by "letting the Bible interpret the Bible." He then considers literally hundreds of scriptures that, on the surface, appear to say Jesus is not God. The conclusion one is supposed to leave with is that the Trinity is false and that Jesus is not God. And from a purely Sola Scripture stand point, Holt has probably done better than any other non-Trinitarian to date in this regard. His arguments will truly put a strain on Protestant preachers as he doesn't let them come into this discussion with a pre-conceived view of the Trinity. He basically challenges persons of the Sola Scripture ideology to take the scriptures, and the scriptures only, and come up with the Trinity. He concludes, as
most Catholic's and I do, that such is impossible. While you may read what I just wrote and think I am supporting Holt's conclusion, nothing could be further from the truth. What he has left out of his book (which he readily admits) is what the early Church Fathers thought of these scriptures. He also, as most Protestants do, did not consider the oral traditions and teachings not set down in the Bible. To think that the whole of the Churches beliefs, confessions, attitudes and understanding were written down in a couple hundred pages of the New Testament is foolish. The Church was growing and being guided by God's Spirit, not by a few letters written by Saint Paul and others. I don't blame Holt for coming to the conclusion he does. When he limits himself to only one part of God's revelation while ignoring the understanding of those Church Fathers who lived back then, subsequently ignoring their traditions and the things they passed on to each other, he gains only a partial understanding of the truth. It was the Catholic Church who was around from the beginning. They had an understanding of God that, in some areas, was not written down. They had no reason to write it down as the Church didn't require it to be. Writing it down made it no more truth than not writing it down. Believe it or not, God was a common understanding by common people back then. Only with the infiltration of people like Arius did it become necessary to formally defend the identity of God. The Catholic Church determined the truthfulness of the Triune nature of God. Protestants took this belief when they left but rejected the real reason we have such a treasured truth. We don't have the Trinity because of the Bible alone. Holt's book proves that. We have the Trinity because Christ's Church was being fed and nurtured by Jesus himself. The Bible supports
the Trinity but only when viewed in light of the Church. This book is a death blow, not to the Trinity itself, but the notion that Sola Scripture could lead to such a wonderful understanding of God. Protestants who insist that the scriptures alone can teach us about God will feel the heat from this book. The Catholic faith remains intact because we don't only rely on a few letters written by a few men to develop our faith. By knowing Church History and the traditions passed on, we have a wealth of information and understanding about God that neither Holt nor Protestants can ever understand
Rating:
Summary: People -- your'e missing the point!!
Review: As one of Jehovah's witnesses, I have had hundreds of discussions with people concerning the Trinity. I was familiar with many of the arguments presented in the book, however I was surprised with some new ones I had not heard before. Finding these new points, and the scriptural explanations that ensued, was worth the purchase price of the book. However, my one concern with this book and its author is what is the motivation in undertaking such an exhaustive and time consuming project such as this. If the reviewers make up a typical sample of the book's readership, then one thing that is evident is that minds are not being changed. Those in favor of the Trinity throw up their time honored, albeit erroneous, defenses. At the same time JW's and those sympathetic to them write in praise of the book's scriptural approach. The truth concerning Jesus' relationship to his Father is so crystal clear in the Scriptures, and the arguments to refute this truth so contorted, that one wonders why one would target such an audience in the first place. Winning arguments with a trinitarian - easy. Spending precious dedicated time and resources in an efficacious manner - difficult.
Rating:
Summary: A nice explanation - but why?
Review: As one of Jehovah's witnesses, I have had hundreds of discussions with people concerning the Trinity. I was familiar with many of the arguments presented in the book, however I was surprised with some new ones I had not heard before. Finding these new points, and the scriptural explanations that ensued, was worth the purchase price of the book. However, my one concern with this book and its author is what is the motivation in undertaking such an exhaustive and time consuming project such as this. If the reviewers make up a typical sample of the book's readership, then one thing that is evident is that minds are not being changed. Those in favor of the Trinity throw up their time honored, albeit erroneous, defenses. At the same time JW's and those sympathetic to them write in praise of the book's scriptural approach. The truth concerning Jesus' relationship to his Father is so crystal clear in the Scriptures, and the arguments to refute this truth so contorted, that one wonders why one would target such an audience in the first place. Winning arguments with a trinitarian - easy. Spending precious dedicated time and resources in an efficacious manner - difficult.
Rating:
Summary: Book is very very bias as correspondance from author shows
Review: Dear Mr. Marsh, Thanks for writing. We have answered over fifty verses used by Trinitarians, and with relative ease I might add. Your question is also an easy one. However, when playing tennis I don't just let people serve me, I serve them too. I have outlined almost 400 verses that explicitly show Jesus is not Jehovah. When you answer all of those, I will be glad to answer yet another Trinitarian challenge. Until then, best regards. Brian Holt On Dec 20 14:16, Daniel Marsh wrote: Subject: question for Mr. Holt
Dear Mr. Holt how do you answer the Trinitarian argument based on II Thess 2:1-2?
In the Kingdom Interlinear at 2 Thess 2:2 under the Greek it reads, "day of the Lord", the margin translation has "day of Jehovah", thus kurious = Jehovah, in verse 1, under the Greek it reads, " the Lord Jesus Christ", and the margin translation has "the Lord Jesus Christ". Both verses have exactly the same grammar in the Greek, and both verse are part of the same sentence, thus if kurious = Jehovah God for one use, then it must mean Jehovah in the other use too. Therefore, Jesus is Jehovah God.
Thanks
Daniel Marsh
Rating:
Summary: watch tower are false prophets anyways
Review: Don't you guys know that the Watch tower use to belive that Jesus was the Almighty? That he was the alpha and Omega? In the finished mystery 1917 states this... I have this copy, most JW's run from the house when I show them this book.... Besides the watch tower claim to be prophets of God in april 1972 ( which I also have) and the prediction are so wrong........ So who are they to argue about the Lord when they use to belive that jesus was Almighty....
| 
