BREAKING THE ARGUMENT FOR TRINITY FROM YOHONNON 1:1 WITH OUT THE ARTICLE ININDEFINITE "A" BEFORE THE WORD GOD. THE FIRST ATTEMPTED PROOF TEXT FROM NT. The most faous sentences of the Yohonnon/ Iohn are as follow: In the Beginning was the Word. The Word Was With God. The Word Was God. The Third line is used as a proof of a part of the Dogma of Trinity Of God. The Word was God. There are Two Possible cases. Either the word God is used in the Real Meaning [Literal/Primery] or in the Virtual Meaning [Interpreted/Secondary]. If it is used in the Primery meaning then it may be used for the Dogma Of Trinity. But if it is used in the Secondary Meaning in cannotbe used for the Dogma of Trinity Of God or any one of the parts of the stated above Dogma. The Word God if used in the Secondary meaning neither means 1) Supreme Being nor means 2) APer Se Subsistent Hypostasis in Godhead of God. In secondary meaning it only means 3] Powerful Being or 4] Authorative Being. In this case this sentence does not prove the Dogma of Trinity. Unfortunately Jehovah's Witness have stressed on the used of the indefinite article in English language. But is the article is neglected even then the Secondary meaning of the sentence is Possible. Neglecting the article in English it still may be used in a secondary meaning. So the meaning of the sentence may be taken as follow: The Word Was "Powerful Being". The Word Was "Authoritative Being". Additionally the word Beginning doesnot mean Eternity. It is often argued that the Greek Word used in Yohonnon shews indefinite past and it may be
arbitrarily pushed backward. In may be but this word cannot be pushed back to the timeless Eternity. It shews only Past Tense and not Eternity which is neither Past nor Present and also not Future since these are three dimensions of time and Eternity is beyond time. But let it be assumed that this word can be pushed so back that it consides or overlaps with eternity. But it can equally be pull formward to the beginning of the World or the Universe. If both pulling and pushing are equally possible then the argument based on pushing it back to Eternity becomes incorrect and invalid. The first sentence in this case can have two meanings. 1] In the Eternity was the Word. 2] In the [Non Eternal] Begining was the Word. If both meanings are equally possible the first sentence cannot be used either for the Dogma Of Trinity or against the said Dogma.(1) The Second Sentence is The Word Was With God. First it must be noted that the Preposition "With" is used. This does shew that the word was not the God stated in this Sentence but With that God Who So Ever That God May Be. The third sentence is The Word Was God. A Unitarian approach is that the word God in the Second Sentence means the Supreme Being Of Judaism the Yahuvah/Iahuvah/Yehovah/Yehveh (IHVH/YHVH] . So the maning of the sentence becomes: The Word Was With IHVH.or The Word Was With Supreme Being. Now if the word was with the Supreme Being then the Word cannot be that Supreme Being. So the Word is Not that Supreme Being. If not that Supreme Being then the Word was Distinct Frome Supreme Being. One that is Distinct from that Supreme Being is a Created Being and not that Supreme Being. Since one that is Distinct from that Supreme Being is a being that is Seperate From that Being.
So the only possiblity is to take the meaning of the word God in the Secondary meaning with or without the indefinite article in its English Translation. It may be argued that the wird and does not shew a Distinction between the word and the God in the sentence 2. But if it is correct then it means that word was with itself. A twisted way to say Word was alone. This is Sebellism and not Trinitarianism. An other Possible objection may be made by Trinitical minded people and Scholars that the word God in the second sentence is used not in the meaning of Supreme Being but in the meaning of := Hypostasis In The Per Se Subsistent Essence of Supreme Being. This may be true. It this is the meaning of the word God then it can be used for the Dogma Of Trinity. But it is also possible to take the meaning of the Supreme Being. As there are atleast two possible meaning of the word God in the Second Sentence of Yohonnon , the argument becomes weak at best or becomes invalid at worst. It is not that that this meaning cannot be taken which supports the Dogma Of Trinity. It is that that that meaning of the word God can also be taken which does not support this Dogma. So the argument becomes weak even if the indefinite article is rejected in English Translations of the sentence of Iohn. Thereb are many languages inthe world where this sentence is teranslated with out any indefinite articles and the Unitarian sects still take the the SYNONYM OF THE WORD GOD in those languages of the third sentence of Iohonnon in Virtual or Seondary meaning. So why English and why not other translations of Greek Sentence. Even in the Greek the article cannot be used since there is no indefinite article in Greek ,still the word may be taken in the Secondary meaning. Similarly the absence of Greek definite article in the Greek Text cannot be used to prove that the word God is used for the Supreme Being or for some Hypostases in the Godhead of Supreme Being. Although it is still correct that it can be used in one of the two stated above meanings , it may be used in secondary meansing as well. If this is so then its translation in any language including English cannot be used to argue that the word God is used in the Real or Primery meanings like Supreme Being or "Hyostasis in Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia of Supreme Being. As the Greek Theos is Anarthrous [ id est with out the Greek Definite article since Greek has no
definite Article] if its English Translation is also Anarthrous [id est with out any Article in English], it is not implied that the word God used as an Anarthrous word in English cannot be used in secondary meanings. So the the meaning of the Greek sentence "Kai Theos [h]o Logos" is translated in any language which has no indefinite article as in Greek say Persian etc. it is not implied that the word is used in the Primery or Real meanings.Similarly if its translation in English is used Anarthrously it is not impled that the English Anarthrous word is used for " Supreme Being" or for "Per Se Subsisten Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Eeesene/Ousia in Supreme Being etc. Now if the Greek Sentence stated above is translated as " And The Word Was God" it is not implied that the word God is used in the Real or Primery Meanings in English, and it was used in the Primery or Real Meaning in Greek. It might be the case that Iohonnon/Yohonnon did not have this meaning when he was writing this sentence. Similarly if this Greek Sentence is translated in any language in which there is no word for indefinite article , it is not implied that the word was is used in the Real or the Primery meaning. How ever one must admit that it may be used in the Real or Primery meaning either in Greek or in any Translation in a language that do not have an indefinite Article. Similarly if it is used in English with out the indefinite Article it may be still in the Secondary meaning, unless it is proved that the word God if used Anarthrously in English can only be used for "Supreme Being" or any Hypostasis in Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence of the Supreme Being. But then this is the sensibility of the translator and which might not be the meaning meant by the author of Yohonnon when he was writing this sentence for the Non Synoptic Gospel in New Covenant (NC). Now if a number of meanings are possible then any argument for the Dogma Of Trinity based on some of them be correct it is a weak argument since it may be used by the original author in any meaning upon which no argument for trinity can be based. Now we come to some objections := 1] Although it is possible that the word in Greek was used in Virtual or Secondary or Interpreted meanings but it is probable that it was used in Real or Primery or Literal meanings, so it is incorrect to take this Greek Word in the latter meanings. Ans. If it is the case even then the argument for the Dogma Of Trinity is invalid. Since one need certainty and Probability. Matter of Faith must be certain and not probable. Any thing less than certainty is not required. Since ages the Dogma of Trinity is considerd as the central Dogma of Christianity. Unitarian sects are declared as Heretics or out of the Christiandom. So even the most probable and almost certain are less that Certainty. So the argument is weak. 2] The word God when used anarthrously in English only refers to one of the Real or Primery
meanings. So the translation cannot be refered to any one of the Secondary or Virtual meanings. Ans: Either this be true or false. If it is false then the argument based on it is invalid. If it is true then it is the sensibility of the Translator. But if other languages are seen things are different. A translation is a translation whether it is in English or Persian or else. English has no preference over any other language. Why not to argue from any other language? Even English speaking people know that a Translation cannot be used to argue for any meaning of the word in a sentence in any other language. 3] There are a number of places in Greek and Hebrew when a Hebraic and Greek equavalents of the word God [ Elohem,Theos] are used in Real meaning. So why to argue for an irregular use of the words in the respective Texts of stated above languages. Ans: It must be pointed out that some times on the demand of Context a word may be taken in Secondary meanings. There is a demand of context. Consider the following sentences: 1] In the Beginning Was the Word. 2] The Word Was With God. 3] The Word Was God. If the sentence 3 is correct then the word Word can be substituted in the first two sentences as well. Now the meaning becomes as follow: 1']In the Beginning Was the God. 2']The God Was With God. 3']The God was God. If "Word Was With God" i.e the sentence 2' means "God Was With God" then either the God that is menstioned befre the worde "With" and the God that is mensioned posterior to it are one and the same or not. If they are one and the same then it is just a twisted way to say "God Was With Himself". But if they are not the same then these are two distinct Gods even if they are one in Essence/Ousia. This implies two distinct Gods whether they are One in Essence/Ouisa or in One Essence/Ousia. But the Dogma Of Trinity does not mension two different Gods in One Essence/Ousia or two different Gods One in Essence/Ousia.
Due to this problem it is not certain whether this repeated word is used in one and same meaning. But they are not in one and same meaning then it is possible that one of them is used in Real Meaning and the other one is used in the Virtual meaning. Trinitarians can make some Trinitical Interpretations but one can make Unitarian Interpretations as well. So this is a proof that the argument is weak from these meanings. ============================================================================== ============================================================================== (1)The Hebrew word in Tanakh for Begening is Be·re·shit בררא ששית ב See the verse
רץ א ר ה א את א מים ו ו א השאש מ את מ הים א אלל ה רא א ראשהשית ב א ש א אב ו ש א: This word is translated in LXX by the word ἀρχῇ See the verse ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν [lxx] ἀρχῇ is the very same word which is used by Yohonnon.
In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth. ἀρχῇ see the verse Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος This is an irrefutable proof that the Hebraic word and Greek word are in one and the same meaning. Now if LXX and Tanakh means the beginning of the Universe or world or earth the same word can be used in Yohonnon in the very same meaning. This is an irrefutable proof that there the word ἀρχῇ can be used for non Eternal Beginning even in Yohonnon.