Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book.
Review: First let me just say, this book is HUGE. About 355 pages worth of pure Trinity goodness. It will take most a long time to get through it. It took me two days to read it, and I usually can read most books in one day. It is also thorough; it deals with ALL the scriptures used to support the Trinity, some I never even heard of. It also shows scriptures that show Jesus is not God, compares them with the ones that Trinitarians use to show that Jesus is God, and let's the reader decide for himself.It also explains Trinitarian logic problems that they create, and fallacious reasoning that they employ to defend the Trinity doctrine with circular reasoning. The author explains to the reader how to look out for these logic problems, and by doing so teaches the reader to defend himself when Trinitarians come up with their latest defense. It is of my opinion that all one needs to defend the Jehovah's Witness position on Christology is this book and a elementary understanding of the original languages that were used to write the Bible. For that reason I recommend this book to non-Trinitarians, but I also recommend it to Trinitarians so that they can fully understand the JW theology on Christ. If I had any criticism at all, it would be that there isn't enough of this book! For instance, while the treatment on Jesus being tempted by Satan was adequate, I feel like the author could've gone more in-depth with that subject. But realistically, that subject alone could take up an entire chapter, if not a whole book. I hope we can expect more from this author, and I look forward to any sequels/revisions to this book, as well as new books on other subjects.
Rating: 
Summary: a good effort ...
Review: first of all, anyone browsing Amazon for books on Christology should be aware that this work isn't of the same caliber as Dunn, Hengel, etc. i mention this in passing because this book came up in the top 5 when i searched for works on both "the Trinity" and "Christology" (way to go Brian!). that said, the author of this work is, i feel, extremely fair. he deals with all of the 'classic' Trinitarian proof-texts, and shows why he finds an alternative understanding more probable. his method is quite simple. first, show all the (very many) passages wherein Jesus is distinguished from "God". next, interpret the (very few) passages which seem to either claim or imply that Jesus is God in light of the majority which (obviously) claim otherwise. i feel that Holt is extremely consistent and that he tries very hard, yet in the end, he is ultimately incorrect. Mr. Holt himself asked me to review his chapters on Acts and Romans. for my fulfillment of his request (and then some), along with an addendum to my review by Mr. Holt himself, search in Tekton Apologetics Ministries, available online. for those interested in this field of study, the following books (all available here on Amazon) are recommended: Richard Swinburne, _Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy_ (clearing the ground and correcting wandering presuppositions so that Scripture can be understood properly). N. T. Wright, _The New Testament and the People of God_ (for situating the student in the proper historical context). Larry Hurtado, _One God, One Lord_ (for situating the student in the proper theological context). Ben Witherington, _John's Wisdom_ ( ... the proper Christological context). Walter Kasper, _Jesus The Christ_ (the best book on Christology i've ever read). Karl Rahner, _The Trinity_ (an extremely sophisticated articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity by one of the 20th centuries foremost theologians). Gerald O'Collins, _The Tripersonal God_ (a simpler, yet very good and thorough, articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity by one of the most respected modern theologians). peace in the Spirit, and glory to God the Father-of-the-Son ;-)
Rating:
Summary: Simple, logical and has the ring of truth
Review: Holt has a way of shedding light on the reasoning of Trinitarians that shows their double standard in how to understand scripture. For instance, he mentions Joseph's words at Gen. 40:8 where he says, "Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell me them, I pray you." Joseph then proceeds to interpret the dreams. Holt then asks, "However, what would happen if Jesus had said the EXACT SAME WORDS? This would most likely be one of the foremost scriptures used to show Jesus is God, would it not?"(pg. 7) And honestly, can we imagine any Trinitarian denying words like these would end up on the pro-Trinity list if Jesus had said them? But if these words in no way say Joseph is God, why would they say Jesus is God? Probably Holt's greatest work was showing the circular reasoning of Trinitarians. For instance, he shows how the Greek word often translated as "worship" (proskyneo) is used in regards to other people, like King David, yet no one thinks it should be translated as "worship" when proskyneo is given to him. Holt shows how this same word, consistently translated as "worship" in the Gospels in the King James Version, is strangely not translated as "worship" at Rev 3:9 when it is directed to
Christians. Apparently the translators didn't think that "worship" was the correct translation there! The logical conclusion drawn is that proskyneo COULD be translated as "worship" if it was ALREADY believed Jesus was God and that the people MEANT to worship him. However, if the people understood the Messiah to be the "King of the Jews" then they would also come to him, bow down and give him proskyneo, just as Nathan did to king David. (see Matt 2:2, John 1:49) How many times have I heard the Trinitarian argument which says, to wit, 'the same word (proskyneo) is translated as "worship" when given to God so that is proof it should be translated as "worship" when given to Jesus.' I have yet to come across a Trinitarian book or web site that at least informs me that proskyneo was also given to kings and Christian disciples of Jesus without meaning they are God. Thanks Mr. Holt for at least being honest enough to give me both sides of the story and allow me to make up my own mind. As He brings out, Trinitarians translate proskyneo with the word "worship" because they already believe Jesus is God. They then turn around and use their translation to try and prove Jesus is God! Do Trinitarians not see the problem with this? Holt concludes, "we cannot*use the fact that worship is given to Jesus as proof he IS God! That is something we would have had to have already proven before we could even translate the word as 'worship'." (pg. 37) So
Trinitarians, if you believe Jesus is God, go ahead and translate proskyneo as "worship." But don't turn around and use your translation to defend your belief that Jesus is God. We know better. Holt talks about Bible translations and masterfully uses nearly every popular Bible out there to show how different verses are translated. (such as Acts 20:28, Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, etc) He pits Trinitarian scholars against Trinitarian scholars, showing how they can't agree on which verses call Jesus God. He then concludes, "The end result is that we have two [groups of] scholars believing the SAME doctrine [the Trinity] but they cannot agree on what verses support their doctrine. It seems that if these scholars cannot agree on how a verse should be translated, that verse is pretty shaky evidence!" (pg. 327) One of the things Holt points out is how Trinitarians use circular reasoning to justify their translation. For instance, he quotes Trinitarian author Murray Harris to the fact that, 99.3% of the time, Paul was referring to the Father when he used the term God (theos). Trinitarians readily admit this. This makes their translation at Rom. 9:5 where supposedly Paul all of sudden refers to Jesus as God especially difficult to justify. To defend their translation at Rom. 9:5, Holt notes that Trinitarians point to Titus 2:13 and argue it is proof that Paul did refer to Jesus as God occasionally. (and I've seen it at many web sites!) The problem is that the translation of Titus 2:13 is also hotly disputed by TRINITARIAN scholars. Even they can't agree whether or not Paul is referring to Jesus as God! To defend their belief that Paul did refer to Jesus as God at Titus 2:13, they turn around and point BACK to Rom 9:5 as proof that Paul did occasionally call Jesus God. So they use their translation of Titus 2:13 to defend their translation of Rom 9:5, then turn around and use their translation of Rom 9:5 to defend their translation of Titus 2:13! And as other reviewers bring out, the strongest part of this book is not how easily one can refute Trinitarian arguments. It's the hundreds and hundreds of verses that Trinitarians need to answer that show Jesus is not God. They have to answer how people in the first century heard Jesus say he was less than God, sent by God, received life from God and called his Father the "only true God" (John 17:3) and yet still believed he was that VERY SAME GOD! Trinitarians do this today by reciting the trinity doctrine. What did these fisherman and housewives in the first century do? Why would they not immediately assume Jesus is someone other than God? Shoot, I grew up with the Trinity engrained in my head and I still think Jesus is someone other than God. What did the common, illiterate farmer in the first century think? Alas, the question every Trinitarian avoids. Thank you Mr. Holt for helping all to at least hear both sides of the story. You probably won't convince the world of the simple truth but then again, neither did Jesus.
Rating: 
Summary: Very, very nice for detractors...
Review: Holt, in a comprehensive, unbiased, and honest examination, comes up with the only Answer that has been available and known to truth seekers of Jehovah God's Word for centuries...
Moreover, he is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so the testament as such becomes more effectual and powerful to our detractors, as well as any and all apostates. The truth always emerges victorious. By vigorously applying himself to the spirit of "epignosis" (Gr.full, accurate knowledge), as well as "ginosko" referred to at John 17:3...Holt 'makes sure of all things' and promulgates the Trinity or Jesus as God as the lie it has always been. I suspect he may be baptized eventually!
Rating:
Summary: Trinitarian distortion is brought to light
Review: I am extremely impressed with this book. Holt presents the most well-rounded and unbiased discussion on the Trinity I have seen. One reviewer below, Mr. Rivera, states that Holt, "as a non-Trinitarian seeking to confirm his heterodox views, ... hardly manages to maintain the facade of objective scrutiny of both viewpoints, but rather blatantly misrepresents the apostolic doctrine of the Holy Trinity." Well of course the author is biased as a non-Trinitarian. Is Mr. Rivera proposing that Trinitarian authors are NOT biased? What the author does though, that no other book on the Trinity that I've read has done, is consider both sides' arguments. And despite what Mr. Rivera says, there is no misrepresentation of the Trinity or straw men and since he didn't give any examples where Holt created straw men or misrepresented the Trinity, he can hardly be taken seriously. As a former Trinitarian and one who has read many Trinitarian books, I can say that Holt's book is not perfect but it is better than any other on this subject. Mr. Rivera is correct in that Holt didn't deal specifically with John 1:1,2 regarding the wording of Jesus being in the "beginning", though Holt deals extensively with John 1:1,2 regarding Jesus' role in creation. However, I have in my possession several books FOR the Trinity that believe the "beginning" at John 1:1 is the same as the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1 where God created the earth. I know JW's believe this too, which means Holt probably believes that as well. If that's the case, Holt probably didn't address it because it doesn't have a bearing on the subject. After all, if my Trinitarian books are right in that John 1:1 is referencing Gen 1:1, then this doesn't mean Jesus is God or that he was not created because the scriptures say angels were in the beginning when God created the earth! (see Job 38:7 where angels are praising God as the account in Genesis chapter 1 unfolds) And Holt does deal with John 1:2, Col 1:16 and Heb 1:2 regarding Jesus and creation. Mr. Rivera would have you think Holt ignored the whole creation aspect of this discussion. And yes, Mr. Rivera, Holt does believe that, in some sense, majority of scriptures on a subject does matter. I'm not saying 5 scriptures saying one thing over power 4 scriptures seeming to say another. What we have with the Trinity though, is nearly a 10 to 1 ratio in the gospel accounts of sayings by Jesus and others showing he is a separate person from God. People back then didn't have the luxury Mr. Rivera does of saying Jesus only meant he was separate from "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity." They believed only the Father was God and when they heard Jesus say he was separate from God, they believed it meant he was separate from God. As far as the grammatical acrobats Mr. Rivera mentioned, Holt does discuss the grammar at John 1:1(which is too deep to get into in this review) but at Col 2:9 Holt doesn't deal with grammar. He merely quotes Col 2:9 which reads, "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fullness dwells." Then he does something Mr. Rivera probably would not do in discussing the meaning of this verse; the author quotes the very next verse: "and, by your union with him, you ALSO are filled with it." (Col 2:10) Does this mean I am God too? Holt does something else that Trinitarians don't do. He quotes Ephesians 3:19 where Paul tells Christians "and so be filled to the full with God himself", or as the Living Bible says, "And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself." No grammar here Mr. Rivera, just a comparison of similar statements made by the same biblical writer. Holt also notes Col 1:19 where Paul says it was "by God's own choice" that God decided to fill Jesus up with His fullness. If it was by God's "choice" then Jesus isn't God. What if God chose NOT to fill Jesus up with His fullness? As far as the scriptures in Revelation that Mr. Rivera mentioned, Holt covers these in depth and shows how weak they are. As a short example, note that Mr. Rivera would have us believe Jesus is the "Alpha and Omega...the one who is and who was and who is coming" mentioned at Rev 1:8. Mr. Rivera doesn't mention that when we look four verses up we can see that "the one who is and who was and who is coming" is a DIFFERENT person from Jesus! (Rev 1:4) Holt does mention this to his readers. Exegesis like what Mr. Rivera uses, where all of the facts are not disclosed, is why there are so many people who believe in the Trinity today. However, I do wish, like Mr. Rivera, that the author would have covered more information on what the church fathers thought but there are other books for that.
This book is not perfect but it's very well rounded and balanced in its presentation. The Trinitarian reviewers keep distorting this book as has been shown several times in other reviews. Hmmm. I wonder why? You might want to get this book and find out what they're trying to hide from you.
Rating:
Summary: Logical arguments lead to truth
Review: I found this book to be quite simple in its approach. The author, a Sola Scripture believer, steps away from the writings of later Christians and basis his arguments both for and against Jesus being God only on scripture. Whether this is good or bad I'm not totally certain but it is by far the most consistent approach. After all, nearly every protestant believer claims a Sola Scripture mentality and yet at the first sign of any church father offering a view of any subject similar to theirs, they immediately quote him as hard proof they are right. Then they turn around and attack the same church father when he teaches something they don't agree with, such as purgatory, mass, etc. My own experience is that many protestants selectively quote church fathers when it is in their interest but turn around and label them apostates when they teach something contrary to their opinion.
The author does discuss the views of two church fathers in one of his appendices (Justin Martyr and Origin) but quickly notes that even though they seem to support his views on Jesus, they are in no way proof of his views. He also has an appendix on whether Jesus is the archangel Michael, which is quite fascinating. However, the author is not above quoting non-biblical sources. For instance, he quotes the New Encyclopedia Brittanica on when it was first conceived that Jesus was Michael: "Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century-namely the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael...The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God." This is a powerful line of evidence that the belief Jesus was Michael was around long before the Trinity (despite what one reviewer said below). The author, though, being truly Sola Scripture, puts this disclaimer right after quoting the encyclopedia. He states, "Granted, it can equally be argued that this belief is an example of the apostasy." He then quotes another source in his favor but then states "Many more scholars and reference works can also be quoted confirming this point [that it was believed Jesus was Michael] but these quotes, in themselves, cannot be used as "proof" that Jesus is Michael." Thus, the author insists on limiting his "proof" to the scriptures and nothing else. From what I've read, doing such is quite dangerous to Trinitarians and is why so many of them bash the author for only holding to the scriptures.
I think one of the simplest elements of this book, as others have noted also, is that the author discusses the scriptures from a simple human viewpoint. That is, when people walked up to Jesus and heard him speak of God as someone different from himself, how did they understand this? The author shows a thorough understanding of how Trinitarians treat such questions today but challenges them to convince the world that the carpenters in Jesus' day already believed in a multi-person God. He wants Trinitarians to justify why a farmer who heard Jesus say God sent him and that he only did what God told him to do would then turn around and believe Jesus was that very same God.
I found some grammatical issues with the book in a few places and, while annoying at times, they do not really distract from the message. The author is an engineer (according to the back cover) and one can quickly see the logical thought process of an engineer as he goes through the scriptures. However, being an engineer may have restricted his writing style at times and a few of his paragraphs and statements could have been worded better.
Just a note, one reviewer asks why none of the other reviewers were discussing the Holy Spirit (HS). This question, along with the fact that he doesn't mention anything about the book itself, suggest he doesn't even own a copy of it. If he did, he would know why none of the other reviewers are discussing the HS. Holt's book is not about the Trinity, it's about Jesus. For sure the author has to discuss the Trinity since it's normally in this capacity that people speak of Jesus. That being the case one will find references to the Trinity throughout the book. But the author explains on page 2 that when he says "Trinitarians" he means both true Trinitarians, One-ness Pentecostals and anyone else who thinks Jesus is God. All one has to do is read the book and it's obvious it is not about the Trinity, per se. That's why none of the other reviewers mention the HS.
And I whole-heartedly agree with another reviewer below regarding the charge that the author is biased. It is interesting that Trinitarian authors are "not biased" but non-Trinitarian authors are. I think all one has to do is honestly compare the number of scriptures the author discusses that go AGAINST his opinion and compare them to how many verses Trinitarian authors discuss that go against THEIR opinion. The difference in number is staggering. As someone already said, this book is one that will be around for a long time.
Rating:
Summary: No straw men arguments here!
Review: I found this book very well written, especially for the layperson. I can't really offer any more praise for it than what has been offered below but I will address a common argument used by negative reviewers. For instance, a "Reader from Finland" states the following about this book. "Without doubt, it convinces you that Jesus didn't claim to be God -- meaning that Jesus didn't claim that he was God the Father. The problem is, Trinitarians don't claim, nor they ever have, that Jesus did." This has been a typical response by Trinitarians to this book but nothing is further from the truth. The author NEVER says that Trinitarians think Jesus is the Father or that Jesus claimed to be the Father. In fact, the author must have heard this argument many times before he wrote this book because he repeatedly, almost to a nauseous level, reminds the reader over and over that these scriptures are NOT contrasting Jesus with "God the Father", they are contrasting Jesus with "God", period! Trinitarians instantly substitute the phrase "God the Father" in place of "God" at their own convenience. Additionally, from the first chapter the author addresses the term "God" as used by Trinitarians, noting that they believe there is "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Spirit" and that they are not the same person and that one cannot be swapped for the other. What these Trinitarian reviewers have done is automatically ASSUME that any verse that contrasts Jesus with "God" must be contrasting Jesus with "God the Father" even though the verse doesn't say "God the Father", it simply says "God." The author acknowledges this tendency for Trinitarians to take it upon themselves to arbitrarily assume when "God" means "God the Father" or "God the Son" or "God the Spirit" or if it means ALL of God as in the whole Trinity. On page 13 he states the following: "How does a Trinitarian know which definition of God to apply to a verse? It is quite simple. If a verse appears to say Jesus is not God or God is someone other than him, then the term God must only be referring to "God the Father..." since it could not possibly mean all of God because this would exclude Jesus from being God." Thus, I can assure you, the alleged straw man argument these reviewers claim is in the book is simply not there. What the author does is go through the book showing HUNDREDS of scriptures that contrast the person of Jesus, not with the term "God the Father", but with the all-inclusive term "God". The author, perhaps frustrated from the same old repetitive response given by Trinitarians, states the following in his concluding chapter. "Think about what this means. Nothing can refute the Trinity doctrine! No matter how many times Peter, Paul or Jesus himself says Jesus has a God, it does not refute the idea that Jesus is God. No matter how many times he is called God's Son, he is still God. Do not worry about how many times the Bible says he is in subjection to God...What about all those verses that say Jesus is a different person from God? Do not worry about those either...In other words, if there were 800, 1600 or even 3200 hundred verses that state Jesus is not God, it would not matter [to Trinitarians]...With that thought in mind, one mask ask himself...am I allowing the Bible to shape my viewpoint of Jesus or am I allowing a preconceived doctrine to shape it?" Good point Mr. Holt. A common argument used by Trinitarians is the question, "Why didn't Jesus just come out and say 'I am not God" if he wasn't God?" But as the author notes in the concluding chapter, even if Jesus DID say "I am not God", it would not convince most Trinitarians. If Jesus did say that, the Trinitarian response would be something along the lines of this: 'What Jesus meant by saying "I am not God" was that he was not "God the Father". He was not saying that he was not "God the Son" and thus, even though Jesus said "I am not God", he was not denying the Trinity or that he is God.' Any non-Trinitarian who has spoken with a Trinitarian can only shake his head in agreement that the likely response to Jesus saying "I am not God" would be just has the author put it. This can be seen from the many times Jesus is distinguished from "God" and immediately Trinitarians will reply that "God" means "God the Father", even though the scriptures don't say that. The author has successfully demonstrated the thinking of many who believe Jesus is God and has shown why their a priori skews their ability to understand the simple truth. This book is awesome!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Reference Work!
Review: I got this book as a result of a theological dilemma I had found myself in after studying with Jehovah's Witnesses for several years. Though they presented a very good scriptural case that Jesus was not Jehovah the Trinitarian views that I would listen to on Christian radio were also very compelling. Most notably are D. James Kennedy, Adrian Rodgers, Hank Hanegraaff's "Bible Answerman", and "The White Horse Inn" discussions. They all are wonderful ministers and are very convincing in their Trinitarian theology yet in a "Trinitarian" sermon I would always note a lack of consistency from beginning to end. For example, early in a sermon one would preach that Jesus was God but then later on a passage that clearly showed that Jesus was not God would be quoted; Not necessarily to prove Jesus was God but maybe to illustrate a different point. At any rate there always seemed to be at least one contradiction in the person's own sermon not to mention what I could discern from my own scriptural knowledge. This bothered me as I was still torn as to who stood more on scriptural truth rather than doctrinal tradition. I believe in Sola Scriptura as the only true way to interpret the scriptures as most Protestants do. However, I discovered that Jehovah's Witnesses tend to stay truer to the philosophy of letting scripture interpret scripture. I got to the point where I knew I needed to do a very detailed study of the scriptures that both support and refute Trinitarian thinking. A very daunting task to say the least! It was at that time that I discovered Brian's book. I cannot begin to describe what a blessing it has been! Not only has this book saved me countless hours of research but also provides me with a very handy reference in that when I hear a passage quoted supporting Trinitarian theology I can go straight to the Scripture Index in the back of Brian's book, find the scripture and examine the argument. At the very least this book provides a great starting point for a research project. At best Brian resolves the issue to my satisfaction right then and there! So far there has not been a scripture used to support the Trinity that is not referenced in this book. This is a very comprehensive book on the subject and anyone interested in the modern day "Arian Controversy" should have a copy of this book in his or her library.
Rating:
Summary: The most complete Non-Trinitarian arguments out there
Review: I have read many books on the Trinity, including works from Rob Bowman, Robert Morey and Ron Rhodes, along with some more respectable scholars. None of these works compare to this book. What we find from the above mentioned authors is a lot of fluff with little substance. They pick a scripture and spend three pages trying to convince you why such a scripture says Jesus is God. Brian Holt has done something novel that is sure to change the way Trinitarians will have to deal with non-Trinitarians. He went straight through the NT recording every scripture that seems to say Jesus is God and every scripture that seems to say he is not. How many Trinitarians have done that? Not many as they would simply be overwhelmed by the quantity of scriptures stacked against them. All to the tune of around 400! And these scriptures that Holt brings to the table are not of the implicit type Trinitarians bring where they have to explain to us why a certain verse shows Jesus is God. There's no question on how to translate the nearly 400 scriptures Holt notes and we don't have to be guided through the Bible playing "connect the dots" with other verses in order to see why such a verse is saying Jesus is not God. As Holt said, the 400 scriptures that show Jesus is not God just "smack us in the face" as meaning just that. However, he doesn't stop there. He combs through numerous Trinitarian books gathering their arguments. Then, one by one and with relative ease, he discusses why these verses do not say Jesus is God. The amazing thing is that he quotes many Trinitarian scholars who challenge other Trinitarians on what certain verses mean. Pitting two people who believe the same doctrine against each other because they disagree on which verses call Jesus is God is a brilliant approach. After all, if Trinitarian scholars can't agree amongst themselves about what a verse means, why should non-Trinitarians accept what only half the Trinitarians accept? As one who has read many Trinitarian and anti-JW books, it's refreshing to see a book that actually discusses all of the evidence. For those who want to remain in the dark and seek refuge from the bulwark of non-Trinitarian arguments, keep buying books by the above mentioned authors. If you want to see just how much evidence is stacked against the Trinity, some from Trinitarians themselves, get this book! But be careful! This book is a powerful attack on Trinitarian faith. The arguments don't come from scholars, theologians or the opinions of Baptist preachers, they come from God's Word.
Rating:
Summary: Keeps God's Word Simple for the Common Man
Review: I read some of the reviews before I bought the book and part of me said don't waste the money, the other part said it might be worth a look. So I bought it and I was impressed with what I saw. The author covers practically every Trinitarian scripture there is and, in my opinion, does a decent job of explaining them. One viewer said he had a flippant attitude in his writing style but I didn't perceive that at all. The author basically took the position of 'It isn't that hard to understand the truth about God and His Son.' That's not a flippant attitude, it's simply a 'don't make this harder than it is' attitude. This one reviewer wants to get into "deep" discussions but why? If Jesus is said to be standing NEXT to the PERSON of God then how much deeper do you need to go to understand if Jesus is separate from God? I believe this reviewer is hung up on human philosophy rather than accepting the simple truth. But she is correct about one thing. Millions of people are being fooled by Trinitarians. Why? Perhaps because they have the same attitude J.Wolf has. They want to make the hundreds of simple statements in the Bible more complex than they need to be. True, the Trinity is a complex doctrine. The relationship of God to Jesus as related in the Bible is not. It's too bad J. Wolf doesn't see that.
And what's with reviewer Daniel Bryant? My goodness this guy has made himself look like a fool. Obviously he doesn't have the book else he'd know the author believes the same thing he does! Mr. Bryant rants on how Jesus isn't God and gives scriptures to back up his statement. But Mr. Bryant is apparently clueless that the whole point of this book is to demonstrate that Jesus is not God. Mr. Bryant seems to think the author is saying Jesus is God! You can't convince me he's read the book.
In regards to the book, it could be a little more in depth in some areas but it is far more detailed than some reviewers have made out. His appendix on Michael the Archangel was interesting (though I'm not convinced) and the simple logic used to dispel the complex arguments of the Trinity are what draw humble, common people to it. After all, the disciples were fishermen, farmers, etc. Not theologians and philosophy majors.
One last comment to the reader who thinks we're all "missing the point." I'm sure he/she would like to think that our personal salvation is the most important thing but to be quite frank, it isn't. This person needs to quite thinking so highly of himself. There are far more important issues in the universe than our personal salvation. And I'm sure even most Trinitarians would agree that it's very important to know the truth about God and Jesus. As the apostle Paul said, some would "have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge." -Rom 10:3. And it was our Lord Himself who said "God is a spirit and those who worship him must worship him with spirit and TRUTH."-John 4:24
So I do recommend this book because of the simplicity in which it presents the truth. For those of you who, like J.Wolf, want to go through the labyrinth of confusing discussions in an effort to explain a three-headed God, this work isn't for you. But if you're the kind of person that simply wants to accept what the Bible says rather than how creative a philosopher can get in order to explain it away, grab a copy and enjoy!
|
