"... and the Word was God" (Warren) -- PDF file

by Doug Mason 4 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Doug Mason

  I have provided the scan of a study, ". . .and the Word was God" (5.59 MB) that was given to me over 30 years ago.

  http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=d2d4d87d0abec5b50616d92beaaf0701

  I would like to add my own comment that the introduction of John's gospel was addressed to contemporaries of his who said "flesh" is "evil, and sin". Because of this, they said this meant God could not have become flesh and hence Jesus was only an apparition, not a real man. John counters this by saying that the Word was indeed God and that he did indeed become flesh.

  Doug
• 

  JosephMalik

  John counters this by saying that the Word was indeed God and that he did indeed become flesh.

  Doug,

  He did but this would be just as true of anyone else that had authority over the human race. John was also teaching that this Word created us, the human race over which he had such authority and was not including anything else like the animals, the planet or the stars. A phrase like "all things" does not mean "everything" and is limited by the context of this Gospel which is only human. This is not a new truth and such use of the term God was also used in OT texts but it was somewhat hidden to the average person in the faith. What John did not do was teach that this Word was also our Supreme Being also called God in scripture but not simply for these reasons. So use of the word God does not make two or more persons called God in the same sense as Trinitarians teach. The word God does not prove identity since it has many applications not all of which are good. This is a simple text made into a major doctrinal scandal with millions of adherents.

  Joseph
• 

  bite me

  Thank you for sharing. I am reading it now.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Joseph,
  
  Thank you for your thoughts.
  
  I do not see "God" in terms of "authority" but in terms of "the essential attributes of deity".
  
  A human might have authority over another but each still self-possesses the attributes of the human nature. One is not a lesser human because of their rank or position in society.
  
  Further, I suggest you find out what a Trinitarian means by "person".
  
  It is still my understanding that John was addressing contemporaries of his who said Jesus was an ethereal spirit because they equated "flesh" with "sin", and hence Jesus could not have been a real physical man.
  
  Sin is not an attribute of human nature, and the nature that Jesus took was untarnished by sin.
  
  I am still looking for a thought out answer from the WTS on the nature of Christ.
  
  Doug
• 

  JosephMalik

  I do not see "God" in terms of "authority" but in terms of "the essential attributes of deity".

  Doug,

  But the scriptures do not. There is no verse to support such thinking. In any event deity is not trinity. The term deity applies only to the Father and the Son in the text.
  
  You said: A human might have authority over another but each still self-possesses the attributes of the human nature. One is not a lesser human because of their rank or position in society.

  But the term God can still be applied to such a human as it was to Moses and others. We are not lesser humans because we are not the President of the country, but we do not have the authority that the President has. This is the way God is used in scripture. Your argument is not applicable as shown. Nor does such an argument support the Trinitarian concept.
  
  You said: Further, I suggest you find out what a Trinitarian means by "person".

  But I do know what Trinitarians mean by person and they are simply wrong in their assumptions. They think they have a superior understanding of this simple word that refutes their view.

  After all I did write Beyond Trinitarianism which is found on my web site as a supplement to the book. It is some 61 pages at present and covers the subject beyond what is necessary to disprove it. The doctrine is despicable and shared by many that support hell fire and immortal soul as well. Such people do not indicate that they really know what the scriptures are teaching us..
  
  You said: It is still my understanding that John was addressing contemporaries of his who said Jesus was an ethereal spirit because they equated "flesh" with "sin", and hence Jesus could not have been a real physical man.

  How words are used is usually determined by context not grammar. But John knew that Jesus was not spirit and recorded this for us. John also knew that Jesus had another nature that was not offered to us and wrote about this as well. John also tells us when this non-human nature applied to Jesus which Trinitarians value so much. So what others may think is not a factor that somehow supports the Trinitarian view. You are free of course to prove your points if you like. I have already documented such information.

  You said: Sin is not an attribute of human nature, and the nature that Jesus took was untarnished by sin.

  But it can be and was in our case. In fact one did not have to actually commit a sin for it be applied to them. This is because it was an attribute of our human nature since we received their life from Adam. Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Jesus did not receive his life from Adam and this is the reason that he was without sin. It is the source of his life not human nature that determines this.

  You said: I am still looking for a thought out answer from the WTS on the nature of Christ.

  And I answered this question long ago but that is another story. The WTS does not know the answer just as Trinitarians do not know the answer. I wanted to know the definition of Deity and I never got a scriptural answer to my question either. All I got were opinions that could not be supported and/or applied to the way they abused the word in their theology.

  Joseph