Brian Holt - Jesus God or the Son of God?

[apostoli]

Hi All,

Several months ago someone recommended Brian Holt's book to me.

Well, Amazon took its time, but Brian Holt's book, "Jesus God or the Son of God?", finally arrived and I've had a long read. I'm somewhat disappointed. If anyone is considering buying the book, I wouldn't bother.

The positive side of the book, is that it might make trinitarians actually make the effort to understand what it is they think they believe. As a study aid, in this direction, I give the book three stars for effort.

Brian is a JW, so my recomendation of its use, is counter to his actual intention.

The negatives:

As a general criticism, I find the title a little misleading. Particularly, as he makes no "real" examination of what either term means. Also, he provably misrepresents his opponents theology.

His chapter on "Grasping at Straws" shows a complete ignorance of the trinity doctrine. He seems to have confused modalism which is directly opposed to trinitarism. Still, the chapter name is appropriate, when its contents are fully examined, it is provable, that it describes his arguments succintly. His section "Divine Nature" being a prime example...

"It has been reasoned being 'the Son of God' would mean Jesus has the same Nature as God. If this is true it would still be a weak argument for Jesus being God because others are also called God's sons and those who are God's sons are also told they will have God's nature..." (2 Peter 1:4).

Actually, 2 Peter 1:4 doesn't say that, even in the NWT. It says we "may become sharers in divine nature" and then explains in what way. There is also a significant flaw in Brian's strawman of sonship. The scriptures plainly and unambiguously teach, Only Jesus can claim to have direct Sonship.

The NWT (Col 1:16) says that "all [other] things" were made by the Son and by definition that includes anything and everything (other than the true Son) called son/s of God. In paragraph 5, Brian says "Jesus is the literal 'only begotten Son of God'". Unfortuneately, he misses the implication. I presume Brian was thinking of John 1:18 (for obvious reasons - see NWT), but 1 John 4:9 and 5:20 give the true signification. At best, there is only one who can claim to be true Son, all others are by association (cp. 2 Tim 1:2) or as A.Paul says by adoption through the Son (eg. Rom 8:15). It is noteworthy that Abraham et al, were not spoken of as "sons" but as "friends of God".

In paragraph 5, Brian shows himself a master of strawmen: Making out "created by God through Jesus" as contrasting with trinitarian belief. Brian obviously had 1 Cor 8:6 in mind, but bypasses the "why" of Colossians 1:16 "All [other] things were created...for [the Son]" (NWT). Understand this fact of scripture, and you understand the Sonship. Only he is of the Father! The NT shows this to be very true, as all things are to the Father but via the Son (eg. Phil 2:10-11).

Brian in paragraph 5 makes a bewildering statement, that is a complete fabrication and misrepresentation that borders on fraud: "Trinitarians assert it is impossible for Jesus to be God's literal Son." The level of ignorance in this statement is astounding. The entire history of trinitarianism in its battle with the Arians (the Son was created from nothing), Sabellians (the Son is just a mode of God himself) and the like is defending the true Sonship, in a real hypostatic pre-existence. In fact, Trinitarianism, through the doctrine of the incarnation, preserves the Sonship even when "becoming flesh" (extreme unitarians reject this). What Trinitarian teaching actually says is: concerning the Sons pre-existence, the scriptures are silent regarding how the Father caused the Son, other than to say that he was begotten. And, we should not think of this in human terms. For God is without mass/substance as we. But the Son, is true Son, having his own subsistence, but exactly like the Father (Heb 1:3) in all conceiveable ways, and the Son is in total unity with the Father in all conceivable ways (thought and action - see whole of the NT).

In his Preface, Brian says (page x) "The uniqueness of this book...[other writers] do not mention the counterarguments or they misrepresent [them]. One of my goals is to present a fair and balanced presentation of this information from both sides." Imo, he failed dramatically. His WTS study style, make statement, cite scripture without context, disallow any discussion or give a misleading opinion, ask a question that is reliant on the statement. This style gaurantees misinformation, conclusions are imposed, not reasoned.

It is a pity that Brian is so disingenious in his opening chapters. As he misrepresents and misunderstands his opponents, it is probable that the informed reader will assume he misrepresents and misunderstands most things he writes about.

Possibly the defects in the book are inherited from the source he uses. The writings of the early and current churches are freely available, in English on the internet, it would have been useful if he verified the things he parrots.

In fairness, Brian goes to efforts to highlight his work is not authoritive but merely a convenient collection of WT&TS books and articles. In this regard I direct his readers to the publishers disclaiming at the beginning of the book - especially the bit about "errors, inaccuracies, omissions". All care taken but no responsibility assumed. Let the buyer beware.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi All,

Several months ago someone recommended Brian Holt's book to me.

Well, Amazon took its time, but Brian Holt's book, "Jesus God or the Son of God?", finally arrived and I've had a long read. I'm somewhat disappointed. If anyone is considering buying the book, I wouldn't bother.

The positive side of the book, is that it might make trinitarians actually make the effort to understand what it is they think they believe. As a study aid, in this direction, I give the book three stars for effort.
Wow, a Trinitarian who didn't like the book. I'm shocked!

"It has been reasoned being 'the Son of God' would mean Jesus has the same Nature as God. If this is true it would still be a weak argument for Jesus being God because others are also called God's sons and those who are God's sons are also told they will have God's nature..." (2 Peter 1:4).

Actually, 2 Peter 1:4 doesn't say that, even in the NWT. It says we "may become sharers in divine nature" and then explains in what way. There is also a significant flaw in Brian's strawman of sonship. The scriptures plainly and unambiguously teach, Only Jesus can claim to have direct Sonship.
I have works from Trinitarian authors (the work isn't on the Trinity though) who say 2 Peter 1:4 means Christians will become spirits like God. This is what Holt is saying too.

In paragraph 5, Brian says "Jesus is the literal 'only begotten Son of God'". Unfortuneately, he misses the implication. I presume Brian was thinking of John 1:18 (for obvious reasons - see NWT), but 1 John 4:9 and 5:20 give the true signification. At best, there is only one who can claim to be true Son, all others are by association (cp. 2 Tim 1:2) or as A.Paul says by adoption through the Son (eg. Rom 8:15). It is noteworthy that Abraham et al, were not spoken of as "sons" but as "friends of God".
nowhere does Holt say that anyone else can be the true son of God like Jesus. See his coverage of John 1:18. Holt admits Jesus is the unique and only begotten.

In paragraph 5, Brian shows himself a master of strawmen: Making out "created by God through Jesus" as contrasting with trinitarian belief. Brian obviously had 1 Cor 8:6 in mind, but bypasses the "why" of Colossians 1:16 "All [other] things were created...for [the Son]" (NWT). Understand this fact of scripture, and you understand the Sonship. Only he is of the Father! The NT shows this to be very true, as all things are to the Father but via the Son (eg. Phil 2:10-11).
Holt and JW's say the same thing. What you just wrote is what we believe. Only Jesus is from the Father. All other things are through Jesus. When are you going to start disagreeing with Holt's work?

Brian in paragraph 5 makes a bewildering statement, that is a complete fabrication and misrepresentation that borders on fraud: "Trinitarians assert it is impossible for Jesus to be God's literal Son." The level of ignorance in this statement is astounding. The entire history of trinitarianism in its battle with the Arians (the Son was created from nothing), Sabellians (the Son is just a mode of God himself) and the like is defending the true Sonship, in a real hypostatic pre-existence. In fact, Trinitarianism, through the doctrine of the incarnation, preserves the Sonship even when "becoming flesh" (extreme unitarians reject this). What Trinitarian teaching actually says is: concerning the Sons pre-existence, the scriptures are silent regarding how the Father caused the Son, other than to say that he was begotten. And, we should not think of this in human terms. For God is without mass/substance as we. But the Son, is true Son, having his own subsistence, but exactly like the Father (Heb 1:3) in all conceiveable ways, and the Son is in total unity with the Father in all conceivable ways (thought and action - see whole of the NT).
I don't know what work Holt was quoting but go look at Robert Bowman's "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" PLAIN AS DAY he says Jesus is not God's literal son. Since Holt quotes this book in his book, perhaps he was thinking of that. I think someone here is a "fraud" as you put it but it's not Holt. And if you don't like what a fellow Trinitarian author says, take it up with him

In his Preface, Brian says (page x) "The uniqueness of this book...[other writers] do not mention the counterarguments or they misrepresent [them]. One of my goals is to present a fair and balanced presentation of this information from both sides." Imo, he failed dramatically. His WTS study style, make statement, cite scripture without context, disallow any discussion or give a misleading opinion, ask a question that is reliant on the statement. This style gaurantees misinformation, conclusions are imposed, not reasoned.
You're on drugs. Compare Holt's work to other Trinitarian books. Holt's blows them away in fairness. At least he covers their arguments.

It is a pity that Brian is so disingenious in his opening chapters. As he misrepresents and misunderstands his opponents, it is probable that the informed reader will assume he misrepresents and misunderstands most things he writes about.
Since you don't appear to be informed about what other Trinitarians are saying, we won't ever know.

To all, Holt's book is IMHO the best non-Trinitarian work out there. It's people like this guy who are apparently unread in popular Trinitarian books that make inaccurate statements about the work. I can't defend everything in Holt's book but you need to read it yourself. Calling Holt a fraud and misrepresenting him when I have my own copy of a Trinitarian author specifically saying Jesus could not be God's literal son is deplorable. Apostoli is just too ignorant on what many Trinitarians are saying. Take it up with your fellow Trinitarians if you don't like what they say. But I know for a fact Holt wasn't being fraudulent on that statement because I have a book from well known Trinitarian author Robert Bowman that says the same thing.

[Aletheia]

His chapter on "Grasping at Straws" shows a complete ignorance of the trinity doctrine. He seems to have confused modalism which is directly opposed to trinitarism.

I could have told you that without even reading the book. JW's don't refute the Trinity, they refute modalism. Good job WTS! :tongue:

[NonTrinitarian]

I could have told you that without even reading the book. JW's don't refute the Trinity, they refute modalism. Good job WTS! :tongue:

BTW, I refute Apostoli's claim there as well. Please site where Holt refutes modalism. He repeatedly differentiates Jesus from GOD, period. He nevers says Jesus is the Father. So quote Holt where is arguing against modalism. I have his book and I don't see it.

[Shazard]

I could have told you that without even reading the book. JW's don't refute the Trinity, they refute modalism. Good job WTS! :tongue:

Yea that's true. And thy can't refute trinity as they are not able even to understand what it says. So actually they admit that doctrine of trinity is out of their reach for their minds. So you can't refute untill you atleast don't understand how oponent understands it.

But yeas... JW are good medicine against Modalists.

[NonTrinitarian]

Yea that's true.

Care to back that up Shazard? Show me where Holt's book only refutes modalism.

[Aletheia]

And thy can't refute trinity as they are not able even to understand what it says. So actually they admit that doctrine of trinity is out of their reach for their minds.

In all fairness, JW's simply don't agree that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. It's not that they can't understand or that the doctrine is out of reach of their minds.

The Trinity is a mystery. It's mystical. It's something that can be intuited, but often slips out of grasp when the paradox is mulled over logically or literally.

And while I believe that scripture implies Jesus' divinity, I don't think it's overwhelmingly explicit.

And as a further aside, it isn't Christianity that brought me to a belief in the Trinity when I left the WTS. I found/discovered/intuited/realized the Trinity through other philosophical meanderings. After that I came to appreciate the Incarnation and the Trinity as found in scripture.

[NonTrinitarian]

After getting home I decided to look a few things up regarding Apostoli’s review of Brian Holt’s book. To be short and to the point, Apostoli is a fraud and a border line liar. Want proof? He pointed out that Holt said some Trinitarians argue it’s impossible for Jesus to be God’s literal Son. Apostoli then accuses Holt of borderline fraud and implies that no Trinitarian would argue that. As I replied initially, I knew at least one. Robert Bowman, Trinitarian author of numerous works. I was a little less harsh on Apostoli, merely accusing him of not being well read on Trinitarian works but now I see he is even a bigger deceiver than that!



I turn to Holt’s book where he states the point that some Trinitarians say Jesus could not be God’s literal son. And low and behold, what do you think I find?! A footnote to the very sentence Apostoli mentions. So I go to the footnote and what does Holt reference (that Apostoli is too dishonest to mention)? Bowman’s book, pg 85! In otherwords, Apostoli had no argument to act shocked and bewildered by Holt’s statement, like he wanted his fellow Trinitarians to be as well. Holt referenced the very book and page number where the statement was made by Robert Bowman! And Apostoli has the gall to come in front of his fellow Trinitarians and accuse Holt of making such an argument up, and calling his a fraud at that? I know who the fraud around here is.



Furthermore, Apostoli snickers at Holt’s argument that Christians will become sharers in the divine nature and what such means. Holt says it means Christians will become immortal, like God. Is Holt alone in this belief? No, as I will now quote Trinitarian author Manfurd Brauch in the book, “Hard Sayings of the Bible.” (BTW, if you think this is some no-name book by no-name theologians, it was written by four authors, all of whom are Trinitarians: Walter Kaiser, Peter Davids, F.F. Bruce and Manfred Brauch.



The commentary on 2 Peter 1:4 reads,

“The phrase “divine nature” itself is well known from Greek philosophical literature, but it is also found in the Jewish-Hellenistic literature of the New Testament period…What partaking of the divine nature does mean for Greek and Jewish authors is to take part in the immortality and incorruption of God. One who has participated will, like God, live in the immortal sphere and like him will not be tainted with any corruption. Certainly Peter means at least this much.”-pg723,724

[apostoli]

Hello NonTrinitarian,

I'll respond to your post #8 tomorrow. For now I'll respond to #2.

Wow, a Trinitarian who didn't like the book. I'm shocked!Actually, dislike is too harsh a word, I was disappointed.

Brian, does a disservice to your beliefs by not reasoning them out. In this regard, I'd compare him to the Trinitarian author Josh McDowell.

I have works from Trinitarian authors (the work isn't on the Trinity though) who say 2 Peter 1:4 means Christians will become spirits like God. This is what Holt is saying too.Doesn't mean they are correct. Back in the 1980's when I was still attending KH & MS, we were told the text only applied to 144,000. Presume that still holds.

Brian on page 22, where he quotes 2 Pe 1:4 ,says "While opinions differ, many believe that they will have spirit bodies....having the same nature as angels, Christ and God"

In the old days I use to love confounding trinitarians by taking Col 1:17 and comparing it to Eph 3:19. Then one day someone had me read Eph 3:19 in the context of Eph 3:9-12, and then pointed out that our participation is only through the Son and we partake via the Son. And it isn't a future tense thing.

Presume the WT&Ts still hold this view in respect of the anointed. We had "two" in my congregation who took the memorial meal.

nowhere does Holt say that anyone else can be the true son of God like Jesus. See his coverage of John 1:18. Holt admits Jesus is the unique and only begotten.Read pages 18-22.

On page 184, where he considers John 1:14 & 18. Brian says "Does anything John says lead us to believe the term 'only begotten son' does not mean what we would normally think it would mean?" Then he goes off on a tangent.

I have friends who have 4 sons? Only one natural to them. The others were adopted. Given Brian's reasoning above, what would you understand about my friends?

To my knowledge, there is nowhere in scripture that equates "begotten" with "creation".

I find it curious that Brian's only comment 1 John 4:9-10 is "Jesus is God's Son" and makes no reference to 1 John 5:18. The later gives a context of the earlier and both explain John 1:18 non dogmatically.

If one is going to discuss "begotten" these are the key scriptures. John 1:18, depending on the manuscript you are using can be translated "only begotten Son" (KJV) or "only begotten god" (NWT). Brian mentions this on page 185, but he argues on the basis only begotten=only created. He says: "we have already seen Jesus is not God's only Son". However, his conclusions are based on the circular reasoning he is so critical of on pages 10-12.

Holt and JW's say the same thing. What you just wrote is what we believe. Only Jesus is from the Father. All other things are through Jesus. When are you going to start disagreeing with Holt's work?See post #1. You obviously haven't "studied" Holt or listened at the KH - both have the Son as the first of many sons. Trinitarianism holds to the scriptures, the son is the only Son of God, all other "sons" are via adoption through the Son. There is a huge difference!

Heb 2:13 - believers in the Son are "the children that God has given" the Son. Literally, we are the sons of the Son. In the context of Hebrew thought, though David was the son of Jesse, Abraham was anterior as his Father. So, the Father of the Son is also our Father.

John 5:11-13 says "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in the Son. He that has the Son has life...believe on the name of the Son of God."

I don't know what work Holt was quotingWhich is a major problem with the book. We should!

Brian doesn't qualify his statements. He says "Trinitarians believe" (page 23). An all inclusive statement that is not true. Subordination and Augustine types have similar but opposing views.

but go look at Robert Bowman's "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" PLAIN AS DAY he says Jesus is not God's literal son. Since Holt quotes this book in his book, perhaps he was thinking of that. I think someone here is a "fraud" as you put it but it's not Holt. And if you don't like what a fellow Trinitarian author says, take it up with himAnd Charles Taz Russell said Jehovah lived on a particular planet. Individuals make error. And to misrepresent an entire belief based on someone's error is disingenius.

I don't know if it still holds but the WT&TS put out an edict about JWs sprouting their opinions on the net. Apparently, there were cases of people teaching stuff contrary to WT&TS opinion. Human nature is what it is - a person will listen but hear what he wants to.

A while ago, a "JW" on Tweb wrote to me something like "The society is in error in its translation of Titus 2:13." Using Brian's dishonesty, quoting unsanctioned opinion, I could say that "JWs believe the NWT is a bad translation". Which is plainly untrue, just as Brian's carte blanc statement about Trinitarians.

Depending on Bowman's context, he might be right. In Trinitarianism, it is not held that "God gave birth to the Son, as a woman a child". We simply say, the scriptures are silent how the Father caused the Son, other than to say he was begotten.

Compare Holt's work to other Trinitarian books. Holt's blows them away in fairness. At least he covers their arguments.There is a lot of rubbish written by all sides. I just lump this book in with the rest of the discards.

Gross misrepresentation as Brian does, is hardly fair. And depicting Trinitarians and Modalism as being the same thing, and then arguing the modalist belief is ignorance in itself. The early church history shows that the Trinitarians were constantly fighting against modalism. In fact the Orthodox have a very legalistic explanation to defend the faith.

Have an honest read of the book. It has good bits, but imo, most of his argument is flimsy. And, he makes only a couple of passing references to his opposition.

If Brian is responding to particular authors, he should nominate them. There are few references: McDowell on page 22. Bowman gets a mention on page 63. Non-Trins like Stafford get cited a couple of times early in the book and Stevenson at least once. Any other cites, are quotes to confirm Brian's preconceptions. There is no presentation of rebutals, such as the Greek grammartarian Mantey, on John 1:1 (The WT&TS use to misquote him, until he threatened legal action).

Where are Brian's references to the Catholic or Orthodox statements of faith? Where are the references to the scholarship (for or against). On honest book, would have started with indentifying a particular denomination of Trinitarians, quote their statement of belief and pick it apart.

Since you don't appear to be informed about what other Trinitarians are saying, we won't ever know.You could refer to mainstream churches. The Catholic Catechism and Orthodox statements of belief are freely available on the net.

Your opinion is comparable to me saying JWs are trinitarians because the guy at the door quoted 2 Cor 13:14 or Romans 8:9-11. Its plainly frivolous.

Modalists (Jesus only types) often use trinitarian type statements but mean the complete opposite to Trinitarians. Do you know the difference?

How do you know you haven't been reading a binitarian? I've read some that at one time sound like trinitarians and at other times like JWs.

To all, Holt's book is IMHO the best non-Trinitarian work out there.There are superior non-trinitarian books. And there are some fantastic non-trinitarian websites, where the authors discuss the opposing views without prejudice and attempt to reason you to their views.

It's people like this guy who are apparently unread in popular Trinitarian books that make inaccurate statements about the work.If you read my post unblinkered, I quote Brian to prove my point.

There is popular and popular. The question is with whom. As there are heretics in the WT&TS, who are regularly cleansed out, the same applies in all churches. At least in the old days the WT&TS advertised their "keeping clean" policy, as a proof of their being the true Church.

I went to the KH for about 15-18 years, and went through the 1975 fiasco without any fuss. I've had friends who were elders and at bethel who were disfellowshipped. None of this changed my attachment for the KH. I was probably a more zealous anti-trinitarian than you are now. I had a vast armoury. But then one day I let the scriptures speak to me. Then I started asking questions.

I can't defend everything in Holt's book but you need to read it yourself. Calling Holt a fraud and misrepresenting him when I have my own copy of a Trinitarian author specifically saying Jesus could not be God's literal son is deplorable.I quoted Brian to prove it! I don't need to misrepresent him, pages 18-25 show he misrepresents the official Trinitarian faith as held by the mainstream churches.

Apostoli is just too ignorant on what many Trinitarians are saying. Take it up with your fellow Trinitarians if you don't like what they say. But I know for a fact Holt wasn't being fraudulent on that statement because I have a book from well known Trinitarian author Robert Bowman that says the same thing.I'm not interested in what a possible fringe dweller has to say. There is the official and sanctioned views and then there are "independent church" views.

You should investigate the history of the WT&TS. I could be as disingenius as you, and call you a Millerite, and even refer to some of the strange ideas of Russell and Rutherford, which Knorr anf Franz took years to clean up.

The Bowmans of this world are not necessarily representative of mainstream Trinitarianism thought or argument and if Brian's intention was to directly contend with a particular persons beliefs, he should have said so. Instead, he represents erroneous ideas that are not universally sactioned as the beliefs of mainstream Trinitarianism.

One final remark: in trinitarianism there is catechal explanations and theological explanations. The first are often simple and for the average person (though as world literacy increases they are getting more complicated), the later are technical and require a huge understanding of scripture. If Holt wanted to argue the inadequacy of the catechists he would get a lot of support from the later.

All the best.

[apostoli]

Greetings NonTrinitarian,

Response to your post #8.

After getting home I decided to look a few things up regarding Apostoli’s review of Brian Holt’s book. To be short and to the point, Apostoli is a fraud and a border line liar. Want proof? He pointed out that Holt said some Trinitarians argue it’s impossible for Jesus to be God’s literal Son.You must have been very tired when you got home. The exact quote Page 23, para 2, 3rd sentence "Trinitarians assert it is impossible for Jesus to be God's literal Son."

Holt does not limit nor qualify his statement. If you are going to prove me a fraud, please do so without fabricating.


Apostoli then accuses Holt of borderline fraud and implies that no Trinitarian would argue that.I never made the remark nor imply that "no Trinitarian would argue that". Your fabrication of my words.

I'll repeat what I said in post #1...

"Brian in paragraph 5 makes a bewildering statement, that is a complete fabrication and misrepresentation that borders on fraud: "Trinitarians assert it is impossible for Jesus to be God's literal Son." The level of ignorance in this statement is astounding. The entire history of trinitarianism in its battle with the Arians (the Son was created from nothing), Sabellians (the Son is just a mode of God himself) and the like is defending the true Sonship, in a real hypostatic pre-existence. In fact, Trinitarianism, through the doctrine of the incarnation, preserves the Sonship even when "becoming flesh" (extreme unitarians reject this). What Trinitarian teaching actually says is: concerning the Sons pre-existence, the scriptures are silent regarding how the Father caused the Son, other than to say that he was begotten. And, we should not think of this in human terms. For God is without mass/substance as we. But the Son, is true Son, having his own subsistence, but exactly like the Father (Heb 1:3) in all conceiveable ways, and the Son is in total unity with the Father in all conceivable ways (thought and action - see whole of the NT)."

As I replied initially, I knew at least one. Robert Bowman, Trinitarian author of numerous works. I was a little less harsh on Apostoli, merely accusing him of not being well read on Trinitarian works but now I see he is even a bigger deceiver than that!Is Bowman mainstream or an independent Baptist type? Does he teach either the Orthodox or Catholic views. After all these two groups make up 99% of trinitarians.

I turn to Holt’s book where he states the point that some Trinitarians say Jesus could not be God’s literal son. And low and behold, what do you think I find?! A footnote to the very sentence Apostoli mentions. So I go to the footnote and what does Holt reference (that Apostoli is too dishonest to mention)? Note that the footnote is not referring to "Trinitarians assert it is impossible for Jesus to be God's literal Son" but "One explanation they sight for not taking the the term literally..."

Assuming Bowman is an American. Is he all Americans? Of course not. Holt does not qualify his main argument, with "some" or "might". He makes unsubstantiated categorical statements. The scriptures say one witness, is no witness.

Bowman’s book, pg 85! In otherwords, Apostoli had no argument to act shocked and bewildered by Holt’s statement, like he wanted his fellow Trinitarians to be as well. Holt referenced the very book and page number where the statement was made by Robert Bowman! And Apostoli has the gall to come in front of his fellow Trinitarians and accuse Holt of making such an argument up, and calling his a fraud at that? I know who the fraud around here is.Hmm. First you interpret what I actually said (see above), then fabricate an argument, then present the fabrication as something I said. Then cite something that has no relationship to what I actually said as a refutation. The mind boggles.

I've browsed Bowman's and Stanford's conversations on the net. I'll have to go find him and see if his explanation conforms to the standard, as I outlined.

Furthermore, Apostoli snickers at Holt’s argument that Christians will become sharers in the divine nature and what such means.I didn't snicker.I'll again quote what I actually said

"Actually, 2 Peter 1:4 doesn't say that, even in the NWT. It says we "may become sharers in divine nature" and then explains in what way. There is also a significant flaw in Brian's strawman of sonship. The scriptures plainly and unambiguously teach, Only Jesus can claim to have direct Sonship."

The Christian belief is we are adopted as sons. It is what contrasts our views. My understanding is unitarians hold the Son as creature is so by adoption. Trinitarians, the Son is true Son, begotten not made.


Holt says it means Christians will become immortal, like God.Well I couldn't find him saying such in pages 18 through 25. 2 Pe 1:4 being referenced on page 22. He does say "there is no need to inject our own opinions...by Bible usage, having divine nature does not make Jesus God anymore than it makes anointed Christians God."


Is Holt alone in this belief?No, all JWs believe the anointed are limited to 144,000 people picked throughout history (well, if not now, they did for most of the 20th century). Most other Christians believe 2 Peter applies to all believers in the Son.

No, as I will now quote Trinitarian author Manfurd Brauch in the book, “Hard Sayings of the Bible.” (BTW, if you think this is some no-name book by no-name theologians, it was written by four authors, all of whom are Trinitarians: Walter Kaiser, Peter Davids, F.F. Bruce and Manfred Brauch.

The commentary on 2 Peter 1:4 reads,

“The phrase “divine nature” itself is well known from Greek philosophical literature, but it is also found in the Jewish-Hellenistic literature of the New Testament period…What partaking of the divine nature does mean for Greek and Jewish authors is to take part in the immortality and incorruption of God. One who has participated will, like God, live in the immortal sphere and like him will not be tainted with any corruption. Certainly Peter means at least this much.”-pg723,724
I never said any different. As far as i can tell Holt is silent (which is fair, seeing it is off topic). 1 John 5:18 makes this abundantly clear.

All the best.

[NonTrinitarian]

I didn't realize Apostoli was a former JW and now apostate. I am ending my discussion with him. However, if someone else wants to pick it up, even quoting Apostoli if you want, I'll be glad to carry on the discussion about the book, Jesus-God or the Son of God. This includes modalists too as Holt states on page 2 that when he says "trinitarians" he does not limit it to those who believe in the official trinity doctrine. He means it to include all who believe Jesus is God. Holt also states that when he says non-Trinitarians, it does not encompass all non-Trinitarians, only those who believe Jesus existed before he came to the earth and who do not believe he is God. He obviously uses the terms loosely and informs his readers of that. It wasn't the Bible that led Apostoli away from the truth, it was philosophical ideas. He then worked them back into the Bible. It is unfortunate he turned away from our Lord and Savior to go off to the lie. Apostoli, you know why I will not engage with you anymore. I hope you come back to your senses.

[Joe Gofish]

If the JW read a Christian Bible they will see that Jesus said He was God,Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.
Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44 - Jesus makes Himself equal to God when He declares, "You heard it said...but I say to you.." Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46 - not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord." Jesus calls Himself Lord, which is God. Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48 - Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.

[NonTrinitarian]

If the JW read a Christian Bible they will see that Jesus said He was God,Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.



uh, no Craig. Read the context. Here it is from the NIV. (would you call that a Christian Bible or did yo have something else in mind?)

3The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."

4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone

5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

8Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only

9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
11they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone

12Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test

Is Jesus saying Satan should not tempt him (Jesus) or is Jesus saying that he (Jesus) should not tempt God to save him? It's pretty clear that Jesus is saying that he (Jesus) should not tempt God to have his (God's) angels save him (Jesus). How do we know Jesus was not saying that Satan should not tempt him (Jesus)? It's easy. Look at the context from your "Christian Bible"

Satan tempted Jesus two other times and neither of those times did Jesus say he (Satan) was not supposed to tempt him (Jesus). Only when Satan challenged Jesus to test whether God would send his angels to save Jesus did Jesus reply that he (Jesus) was not supposed to tempt God. If Jesus meant that Satan was not supposed to tempt him (Jesus) he would have said that on the very first temptation. Context dude, context.

Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44 - Jesus makes Himself equal to God when He declares, "You heard it said...but I say to you.."
Yep. See, this is why this thread is here. To show how Holt's book answers stupid Trinitarian arguments!

quote from Holt's book



Another example of reading too much into a verse is when Jesus uttered the words, "I say to you" followed by a teaching...It is felt only God himself could say (such a thing)...This rule does not take into account Jesus' own words in John 7:16,17, "What I teach is not mine but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality." (HMM, YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT VERSE, DID YOU CRAIG?) He was simply relating a message from God. Consider a similar example of this being done.

In Act 15:1,5, which reads, "And certain men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: Unless you get circumcised...you cannot be saved..."

Did they have to observe the Law of Moses? After much debate, notice what the Apostle James says in Acts 15:19-20.



"When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'[b] 18that have been known for ages.[c]

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (NIV)

What an enormous event that has just taken place! The Christians realize obedience to the Mosaic Law was not required anymore! And where did this come from? James said it was HIS decision! Are Trinitarians (and Craig Two) lining up to now assert James is God? Obviously not. We recognize James did not come to this revelation by himself, he was guided by God's spirit....It is the same with Jesus. He was not changing any laws, he was merely saying what God told him to say. (John 7:16,17)

End of quoting Holt's book

Also, Holt's book has a footnote here that reads, "One may wonder if Trinitarians (and Craig Two) think Moses is God too because Jesus said of him, "Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning."

HEY CRAIG TWO, does this mean Moses is God? He changed God's Law and allowed divorce, according to Jesus!





Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46 - not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord." Jesus calls Himself Lord, which is God.

When Saul thought he was talking to an angel and not Jesus, he called him Lord at Acts 9:5. Sarah called Abraham her Lord. John calls an angel Lord in Revelation 7:14. Need I go on? I've got a bunch more examples of people called Lord!



Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48 - Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.

Uh, read Matthew 9. Apparently the people who witnessed it had different conclusions from you. They thought God had given that ability to Jesus, not that Jesus was God. His apostles also didn't think he was God when he forgave sins because after he forgave sins they still wondered who he was and how he could control the weather.

buy this book and get a clue on all the lies Trinitarians have been feeding you!

[Shazard]

In all fairness, JW's simply don't agree that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. It's not that they can't understand or that the doctrine is out of reach of their minds.

The Trinity is a mystery. It's mystical. It's something that can be intuited, but often slips out of grasp when the paradox is mulled over logically or literally.


Actually by saying "Jesus is God" JW mind translate it into "Jeus is Father". For JW mind "God" is title for Father. That's why they so angry fight agains trinitarians as they think that they teach that Jesus is Father and when tehy read that Father and Jesus is not the same, they are confused. They just ommit the term "God" and intuitively substitutes it with "Father", where trinitarians has very distinction between terms "God", "Father" and "Jesus". For christians it is 3 terms here, for JW the list is 2 terms where one term is repetead using "title" and owner of the title.

So that is what I mean by saying JW are unable to undrerstand trinity as they are unable to see how Christians see it. But to refute trinity actually you have to "mount" the belief and proove it is wrong and contradictional. They claim contradictions on their base not on trinitarian base. It is like judging citizen of different country by laws of some other country thus claiming that you have prooven all Chinese criminals coz USA law (for example I am not lawyer so excues my knowledge) forbids communistic party.

[NonTrinitarian]

Actually by saying "Jesus is God" JW mind translate it into "Jeus is Father". For JW mind "God" is title for Father. That's why they so angry fight agains trinitarians as they think that they teach that Jesus is Father and when tehy read that Father and Jesus is not the same, they are confused. They just ommit the term "God" and intuitively substitutes it with "Father", where trinitarians has very distinction between terms "God", "Father" and "Jesus". For christians it is 3 terms here, for JW the list is 2 terms where one term is repetead using "title" and owner of the title.
I've asked Shazard to back up his allegations that JW's are confusing the Trinity with modalism. Apparently he can't read or he's got nothing but a bunch of hot air. JW's know Trinitarians don't think Jesus is the Father. So back up what you say Shazard, else we all see what you really are.

[Shazard]

I've asked Shazard to back up his allegations that JW's are confusing the Trinity with modalism. Apparently he can't read or he's got nothing but a bunch of hot air. JW's know Trinitarians don't think Jesus is the Father. So back up what you say Shazard, else we all see what you really are.

Read thread about "is Jesus God", Pythagoras all the time confuses trinitarian view with modalist or/and thriteist view. Also Christians and JW differently understands term "God" and that's why they can't even to start to talk. For JW it is title, for Christian God is nature!

[NonTrinitarian]

Read thread about "is Jesus God", Pythagoras all the time confuses trinitarian view with modalist or/and thriteist view. Also Christians and JW differently understands term "God" and that's why they can't even to start to talk. For JW it is title, for Christian God is nature!

Firstly, Shazard, I don't know if Pythagoras is a JW. There are other non-Trinitarians besides JW's. Secondly, if he is, (don't believe he is though), it's about as brilliant to categorize his teachings with JW's as it is for me to say all Baptists think animals will go to heaven because I had one tell me the horses mentioned in the book of Revelation proves all animals will go to heaven. Quote from an official JW publication if you want to talk about the beliefs of JW's.

[Aletheia]

They claim contradictions on their base not on trinitarian base.

I agree. :smile:

[apostoli]

Hello All,

I didn't realize Apostoli was a former JW and now apostate.I should clarify. I was never baptised! Therefore, I am not considered apostate by the WT&TS. In fact I am still warmly welcomed at the KH. In all the years I associated, attended the Ministry School and even went door knocking, and even now, I have not been set apart. Nor has my ex-wife, who was baptised, and is now agnostic, been disfellowshipped.

In fact last year, many old friends from our original congregation who are still in their faith came to my Sons funeral (he wasn't a JW).

I'm not anti-JW, nor anti-Holt. I am, anti-deceit.