Another verse quoted in defense of the "Trinity" is the
verse of John 1:1 :
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God."
When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that
I had finally found my elusive goal. However, after
substantial research into Christian theological literature,
I would later come to learn that this verse too can not be
interpreted to justify a "triune" God. My own experience has
shown that this verse is the one most popularly quoted by
most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I
shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the
analysis of the other verses.
First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the
above verse that even in the very best case, this verse
speaks only of a "Duality" not a "Trinity." Even the most
resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in
this verse any mention whatsoever of a "merging" of a Holy
Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were to accept
this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we
find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a
"Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even
command us to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to
notice the following points:
1) Mistranslation of the text:
In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple
John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being
"ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos"
(The Divine/The God). A more faithful and
correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was divine" (If you read the New World
Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this
Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American
Translation" this verse is honestly presented as
"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with
God, and the Word was divine."
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar
Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago
Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the
heading of "God" we read
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was
with the God [=the Father], and the word was a
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier
Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and
the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by
Dr. James Moffatt
Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J.
Schonfield and many others.
If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we
find the exact same word (ho theos) that was
used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to
describe the devil, however, now the system of translation
has been changed:
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the
minds of them which believe not."
According to the system of the previous verse and the
English language, the translation of the description of the
Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a
capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact
same words to describe the Devil, then why should we
change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the
god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is
translated as the almighty "God" when referring to
"The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the
"translation" of the Bible took place?
Well, what is the difference between saying
"the word was God," and between saying
"the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same?
Far from it! Let us read the bible:
"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you
are children of the most High"
"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a
god to Pharaoh"
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the
minds of them which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4
What does all of this mean? Let me explain.
In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise
someone to say "You are a prince," or "You are an angel"
..etc. When someone says this do they mean that that person
is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual
being? There is a very slight grammatical difference between
saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You are
THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is
Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also
take into account the meaning as understood by the people of
that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest
problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces
us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through
Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither
Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original"
manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek
or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as
Psalms 82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that
there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying
the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the continuous
filtration of these manuscripts through different languages
and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's
extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original
Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has
led to this misunderstanding of the verses.
The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means
"It is time for you to leave." However, if a non-American
were to receive this command without any explanation then it
is quite possible that we would find him beating the road
with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he
understand the meaning? No!
In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find
a single priest or nun who does not address their followers
as "my children." They would say: "Come here my children",
or "Be wary of evil my children" ... etc. What do they
A fact that many people do not realize is that around
200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday
use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a
conscious effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive
the dead language. Only about a third of current spoken
Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from biblical
and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival
and includes elements of other languages and cultures
including the Greek and Arabic languages.
Even worse than these two examples are cases when
translation into a different languages can result in a
reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West,
when someone loves something they say "It warmed my
heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy
would be conveyed with the words: "It froze my
heart." If an Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner
with the words: "It froze my heart to see you," then
obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole
lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This
is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been
so much more successful in the preservation of their holy
text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language
of the Qur'an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh)
to the present day a living language, the book itself has
always been in the hands of the people (and not the
"elite"), and the text of the book remains in the original
language of Muhammad (pbuh). For this reason, a translator
must not and should not "translate" in a vacuum while
disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who
wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was indeed quite
common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to
convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human
beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by
them to mean that these individuals were in any way
omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty.
2) Basic message of John:
Now that we have seen the correct translation of the
verse of John 1:1, let us go a little further in our study
of the intended meaning of this verse. This verse was taken
from the "Gospel of John." The very best person to ask to
explain what is meant by a given statement is the author of
that statement himself. So let us ask "John" what is his
mental picture of God and Jesus (pbuh) which he wishes to
convey to us:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not
greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than
he that sent him."
So the author of John tells us that God is greater than
Jesus. If the author of this Gospel did indeed wish us to
understand that Jesus and God are "one and the same," then
can someone be greater than himself? Similarly,
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and
come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would
rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father
is greater than I."
Can someone "go" to himself? Can someone be "greater"
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to
heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son,
that thy Son also may glorify thee:"
If John meant to tell us that "Jesus and God are one and
the same" then shall we understand from this verse that God
is saying to Himself "Self, glorify me so that I may glorify
myself"? Does this sound like this is the message of
"While I (Jesus) was with them in the world, I kept
them in thy (God's) name: those that thou gavest me I have
kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition;
that the scripture might be fulfilled."
If the author of John wanted us to believe that Jesus and
God are one person then are we to understand from this verse
that God is saying to Himself "Self, while I was in the
world I kept them in your name, self. Those who I gave to
myself I have kept ..."? Is this what the author intended us
to understand from his writings?
"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given
me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory,
which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the
foundation of the world."
Similarly, did the author intend us to interpret this as
"Self, I will that they also whom I have given myself be
with me where I am; that they my behold my glory which I
have given myself, for I loved myself before the foundation
of the world"?
So, we begin to see that in order to understand the
writings of a given author, it is necessary to not take a
single quotation from him in a vacuum and then interpret his
whole message based upon that one sentence (and a badly
mistranslated version of that sentence at that).
3) Who wrote the "Gospel of John"?:
The "Gospel of John" is popularly believed by the
majority of regular church-goers to be the work of the
apostle John the son of Zebedee. However, when consulting
Christianity's more learned scholars of Church history, we
find that this is far from the case. These scholars draw our
attention to the fact that internal evidence provides
serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of
Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the
Bible by John Mckenzie we read
"A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken
Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:
"This is the disciple which testifieth of these
things, and wrote these things: and we know that his
testimony is true."?
Did the apostle John write this about himself? Also see
21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple
who Jesus loved" according to the Church is John himself,
but the author of this gospel speaks of him as a different
Further, The Gospel of John was written at or near
Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of
the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s).
According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and
other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was
beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the
fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost "inspire" the
apostle John's ghost to write this gospel sixty years after
he was killed? . In other words, what we have here is a
gospel which is popularly believed to have been written by
the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him.
In fact no one really knows for certain who wrote
"Since the beginning of the period of modern critical
study, however, there has been much controversy about
[the Gospel of John's] authorship, place of origin,
theological affiliations and background, and historical
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2,
Abingdon Press, p. 932
4) Who "inspired" the author of this gospel to write
The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by most reputable
Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew,
Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine
inspiration for them and who wrote them decades before the
"gospel of John" was ever conceived. Groliers encyclopedia
has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the
"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make
logos a central concept ...In the New Testament, the
Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to
logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the
Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ.
Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps
through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings
of Philo of Alexandria."
T. W. Doane says:
"The works of Plato were extensively studied by the
Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great
teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was
destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the
Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God" is a
fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy,
evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a
Pagan philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or
Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony
borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian...We see then
that the title "Word" or "Logos," being applied to Jesus, is
another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity. It
did not receive its authorized Christian form until the
middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan
Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have
declared that there was 'First God, then the Word, and with
them the Spirit'. Here we see the distinctly enumerated,
God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, in
ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this
capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to
three deities, which three deities were honored with joint
From Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions,
6) What was "The Word"?
"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your
religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus
the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and
His Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit
preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers.
Say not "Three," desist! It will be better for you, for
Allah is one God. Glory be to him. Far exalted is he above
having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and
the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171
In the Qur'an we are told that when God Almighty wills
something he merely says to it "Be" and it is.
"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We
intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" - and it
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read
This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word." "The Word"
is literally God's utterance "Be." This is held out by the
Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read:
"And the Word was made flesh".
In the Qur'an, we read:
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of
Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And
The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):59.
Regarding what is meant by Allah by "a spirit
preceding from him" I shall simply let Allah Himself
"And [remember] when Allah said to the angles:
'I shall create a human (Adam) from sounding clay, from
altered mud. So when I have fashioned him and have breathed
into him of my spirit, then fall down in prostration before
The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29
For more on this topic, please read section 188.8.131.52
Let us once again update our table:
God is ONE
Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18,
Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus
20:3, Exodus 34:14
God is TWO
John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
God is THREE
1 John 5:7 |
II Corinthians 13:14,
God is MANY