Triunity : A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS OF TRINITARIANS FROM JOHN 1:3 [A PROTO VERSON WITH POSSIBLE ERRORS]

1]An argument is made that if all things were made through Logos then Logos is not made since no thing can be made through itself.Therefore Logos is not among all the thing which were made. This implies Logos is Unmade and Not Made. If not made then Eternal.2] An other Argument is that if no thing is made with out Logos then Logos must Pre Exist all Created things implying that It is uncreated.Both of the arguments are incorrect and invalid.Trinitarians use these two arguments to prove Trinity or Tri-unity.

So a detail discussion is required

Discussion on Greek Sentence 1:3.

Nestle GNT 1904

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.

This verse is tanslalted as follow: All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

The word by is used in the meaning of "through" implying that the subject of the pronoun him i.e Logos is a Mediam ; neither the agent nor the grammatical subject. So the Grammatical Subject is misssing in the sentence.

An other possible meaning is as follow:= " All things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened".... .

Young's Literal Translation If there is atleast one thing that is either Not Made/Not Created at all or is not Made through Logos then either one has to insert "Other than that thing " either mentally or actually while reading the Text of the Sentence.

First Discussion:= The Greek word : "πάντα" (panta) means "All things" or more accurately "All".

The Greek word "ἐγένετο" may also mean "emerged" but in is taken as "made" with out any discussion.

There are two possible cases regardless of their probability and improbability. Either the word is so general that it cabn be applied to all beings,hypostases,essences/ousie etc or not so general.

If it is supposed that the Word Thing is so general that it can be applied to all Being Subsistent Hypostases, Essences/Ousie etc. a Per Se Subsistent Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia is a thing.

In this case each and every thing given below is excluded from the Text of the Greek Sentence implying that

they are excluded from any translation of the Greek sentence in any language of the world what so ever the language may be.

1) The First Hypostasis 2] The Second Hypostasis 3]The Third Hypostasis.

4] Godhead.

All of them are Per Se Subsistent Eternals.

So atleast four Per Se Subsistent Eternal things are excluded from the text of the Greek sentence.

On the other hand Uniterians may Exclude only two things.

1)God 2) Logos.

If the word Thing is not so general and some sort of generality is lost and this word is used in the meaning of Being then "No Hypostasis is a Thing" since "No Hypostasis is a Being".

But the difference between a thing and a being is still significant.

If one that is not a Being may still be a Hypostasis.

But one that is not a Thing is Nothing.

So if a Hypostasis is not a Being it may not be a Nothing yet if it is not a thing then it is nothing.

But no trinitarian say that a Hypostasis is nothing in the Godhead.

This does shew that a Hypostasis is a thing otherwise it is nothing at all.

This does shew that the word thing is not less general.

So even a wise trinitarian is compelled to insert the following words in red colour in the tranlation either mentally or actually:= All things [Other than three Hypostases and Godhead] were made through him. Without him was not anything [Other than three Hypostases and Godhead] made that has been made.

On the Contrary a Unitarian may insert the words given in red colour in the given translation:= All things [Other than Logos and God] were made through him (Logos). With out him (Logos) was anything [Other than Logos and God] made that has been made.

So Unitarian and Trinitarian are even in actuality and in truth.

Both have to insert something from their respective perspectives and theological backgrounds.

How ever if a Trinitrarian claims that the word thing means being and the word beings means things, and three Mutually Distint Per Se Subsistent Hypostases in the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia are not Three things but the constitute one thing even then Trinitarian are not in a superior position in compare to Unitarians.

One may study the case of Dogma Of Trinity from this perspective as well.

If there is atleast one thing that is not created /not made through Logos then either the thing is not made at all or is made but not through the medium of the Logos (i.e made directly with out any medium whether it be Logos or else).

God is exluded from the Greek sentence since all the semitic religion do agree that God is Eternal inspite of their internal disputes about God. So God is exluded from the Greek Sentence.

If God is Exluded then one has to insert the word "Other Than God " in the Greek sentence as follow: All things [Other than God] were made through him (Logos). With out him (Logos) was anything [Other than God] made that has been made. Or All [Other than God] were made through him (Logos). With out him (Logos) was any One [Other than God] made that has been made.

But in this case one can exlude Logos from πάντα as well .

Since if atleast one thing is excluded some more things can be excluded as well.

If God and Logos are excluded then neither it is implies that Logos is God nor it is implied Logos is Eternal.

If God is Excluded from the common faith of all semitic religion the article of all semitic constitutions that God is Eternal, Logos can be excluded from the principle "It is Impossible to Make a thing through it self even by God".

One may argue that if that be so [ i.e neither Godhood of Logos is implied not Eternity of Logos is implied] than the same must be correct for God, that none of the two are implied even in the case of exclusion of God from the Greek Text of the Sentence under discussion.

The answer to this objection is that God is Eternal, and God is God that is Eternity and Godhood are ascribed to God as the basic belief of all semitic religions not because that they are implied by text of the Greek Sentence or are explicitly mentioned in the Text of the sentence under discussion explicitly.

Note: Panta means All the word things are supplied to convey the meaning which may not be coveyed without it. But it must be noted that ALL is much more general and it cannot be restricted or limited to Beings, Ousie,Essences etc. It includes Hypostases as well.

Conclusion: Either God is a Thing in Trinitical Theological System [TTS] or God is Not a Thing in TTS. [ The word Panta includes God even if there is no Greek word for thing in the Greek sentence].

If God is a Thing then:= 1) The Text of the Sentence of Greek IOHONNON 1:3 does imply that even God is made and created....................(R1) 2)

If God is a thing yet God is excluded from this Greek Sentence than every wise Trinitarian must accept that := One has to insert some words excluding God in the sentence assuming it to be understood either mentaly or actually while reading the Greek Text or Translating it in any Language or in the commentary of the sentence under discussion.

Like "All Things [Other Than God] .......". or "All Things [Except God]....." etc.

---------------------R2 If God is not a Thing then :3) God is Nothing ,Since one that is not a Thing is Nothing. But this position cannot be accepted by a Trinitarian since only Athiests can say such a thing..................................R3 4) God is not a thing yet God Exist.

In this case God is neither a Thing nor a Nothing...........................R4 Since if God is not a thing and Also God is Nothing then God is neither of the two.

So it is found that in case of R2 they are not in any better position since even they have to accept the mental or physiscal inserstion of some words in Brackets. The same thing done by Unitarian Sects Of Christianity like JW etc.

1] may still be said that Trinitarian exclude only one thing while Unitarian Exclude two things. So they are in a better position.

But once the requirement of exclusion is accepted then it is immeterial that one thing is exclused or two things are excluded. One only needs a proof to exclude a thing from the sentence. God is excluded from the belief of His Eternity and Logos from the alleged principle that "It is impossible to make a thing through it self even by Omnipotent God".

2] It may be also said by a Trinitarian that God is neither a Thing nor Nothing.

So God is excluded from this sentence.

The answer is if so then why such a thing can be said for Logos.

It may be the case that Logos although made by God is Neither a thing nor (a) nothing.

In this case if there is some one who/that is neither a thing nor (a) nothing then it is not implied that that one is God. It may imply in som sub-systems of Trinitarian minded people but not the official dogma of Athanasian Trinitical system.

Second Discussion The second part of the sentence is as follow:

Without Logos was made nothing that was made.

[The Pronoun him is changed by the noun Logos].

Now either Logos is made or not made. If Logos is made then the sentence implies that Logos was made not with out itself.

Now if it is some how proved that it is impossible for God to make Logos not without itself only then the next part can be used to shew that Logos was not made otherwise not.

If it is Possible for God to make a thing without itself then Logos canbe/couldbe made with out itself. If Logos canbe/couldbe made with out itself even then it was made not without itself.How ever if " it is Impossible for God to make a thing without itself" then Logos was made not with out itself. So the second part of the sentence is in accordance to this result.Since if it is impossible for God to make a thing with out itself the only possible way to make a thing for God is to make it with itself.

We can shew this in the following syllogysm:= All things are made not with out Logos [Major Premease] Logos is a thing [Minor Premease] Logos is made not with out Logos [Result] This result implies Logos was made not without itself.

This implies that Logos was made with itself like any other thing that is made. Since each and every thing is made with itself.

If " it is possible for God to make a thing without itself" then Logos Canbe /Couldbe without without itself. If God Has the Power/Omnipotence to make a thing without itself even then God did not excercise his this Power /Omnipotence atleast in the case of Logos.

The only difference is that all the things other than Logos were either made not with out themselves or not with out themselves yet Logos was made not without itself.

An other thing is that if a thing is made not without itself then it is not implied that it is made without Logos.

There is no such implication.

So if all things are made not with out themselves even then they are made not with out Logos, one of them.

If all things are made without themselves EXCEPT Logos even then they are made not without Logos, and Logos is made not without itself.

This there are the following cases:= 1] It is Possible for a thing to be made without itself.

If this is Possible then it is also Possible for a thing to be made not without itself. But if it is not then there is only one way for God to make a thing, and that is to make a thing not without itself.

So it is impossible for God to make a thing without itself and it is only possible for God to make a thing not without itself. This is confirmable and compatable with the belief that Logos is made.

2]It is Possible for a thing to be made not without itself.

If this is Possible then it is also Possible for a thing to be made without itself. But if it is not Possible then

there is only one Possible way for God to make a thing, and that is to make a thing without itself. In this case if all things are made without themseves and it is impossible for each and every thing to be made not without itself then Logos cannot be made not without itself implying that the sentence is contradicted in its second part.

3]It is Impossible for a thing to be made without itself.

If it is impossible for a thing to be made without itself then the only possible way for God to make a thing is to make it Not without itself.

4]It is Impossible for a thing to be made not without itself.

If it is impossible to make a thing not without itself then it is impossible for God to make a thing not without itself. This implies that if a thing is made by God then it is made without itself.

In this case if Logos is made not bigotten or generated this means that Logos is made without itself and this is the case which may support the Dogma Of Trinity.

But if studied in detail it does not . This shall be discussed in the latter discussions.

If "To make a thing not without itself is not impossible" then this part/clause of the sentence cannot be used against the belief that Logos is Made Not Unmade.

But for suppose that it is impossible.

If it is impossible

But if it is impossible for God then the next part of the sentence additionally imply that Logos was made not without itself like all other things since it is impossible to make a thing without itself.

The problem only comes when it is supposed that it is possible to make A THING not without itself.

If All things which are made are made not without Logos then := If Logos is made then it is made not without itself/Himelf.

If Logos is made with out itself then Logos excludes the Second Part of the Sentence.

Now either it is possible for God to make a thing Without itself or it is Impossible for God to Make a thing without itself.

If it is impossible to make any thing without itself/himself then if Logos is made then it is implied that Logos is made not without itself .

If it is impossible to make any thing not without itself then each and every thing is made with itself. So Logos is also made with itself. There is no contradiction of this statement with the next part of the Greek sentence under present discussion.

If it is possible to make any thing not without itself then:= 1) Either it is possible to make any thing with out itself or it is impossible to make any thing with out itself.

Third Discussion If A thing is excluded from the first part it is implied that the thing is also excluded from the second part of the sentence under discussion.

For Example if God is excluded from the first part then God is Also Excluded from the second part as well.

Similarly if Logos is excluded from the first part of the sentence of Yohonnon/Iohonnon then the Logos is also excluded from the second part.

Forth Discussion God can do and perform different types of acts. Making or Creating is one of them. There are some other types of Acts which God can do like Speaking or saying, seeing,hearing, loving his made world, etc.

If Logos is not made, then Logos is spoken. Speaking is an other God. God did speak in the beginning when he said: Let There Be Light see Genesis. Even in New Covenant it is reported God called Iesous his beloved Son. In trinitarian theology all three Hypostases can converse with one another.

Now these acts of speaking and Coversing are not eternal .

The proof is that if each act of speakinf was Eternal then it is well known that Light became in existence immediately after God Spoke the words as reported in Genesis. Suppose that these words are Eternal then this implies that Light is Eternal. It is impossible that God spoke these words in Eternity and light appeared after infinite posteriority and did not Exist in Eternal anteriority.

Similarly the Acts of speaking ,ordering, commanding etc. are not the act of Making. So just as in case of act of making the terms of the Act i.e the made things are temporal and not eternal since the Acts of Making are Temporal and Not Eternal similarly the terms of act of speaking or conversing or saying are Temporal and Not Eternal. This implies that the terms of these acts i.e spoken words and spoken sentences are temporal and not eternal.

If some one makes a distinction between temporal and Not Eternal in this case one should drop the word temporal. The case is still correct if these are not Eternal. How ever Not Eternal and temporal are taken in one and same meaning in the previous lines of sentences.

Now we come to say that Act of Speaking as reported at various places in Genesis is not the act of Making.

So the LOGOS if it is a word is spoken by God, like all other words and is Not Eternal since it is a Term of an Act that is not Eternal.

So Logos if it is assumed that it is not made even then it is neither in the Divine Per Se Subsisbtent Ousia/Essence nor an Eternal Term other wise not only this Logos but each and every word spoken by God is not only Eternal but in the Per Se Subsistent Essence of God. So the trinity is imediately generalised to Multi-Unity or Multinity.

Each spoken word is in this case a Per Se Subsistent Hypostasis in Godhead. So this is incorrect.

Now the Question is "Is act of speaking Act of Making"?

The answer is it is not.

Otherwise it can be said that " God said 'Let There be light' means 'God made 'Let There Be light'.

That is God not only made the light but God also the words "Let There be light".

But these words are spoken and there is no Biblical evidence what so ever that the acts of hearing,seeing,speaking are just acts of making and nothing else.

So these acts like acts of making are acts yet other then the acts of making. So Logos at best be claimed to be Spoken neither made nor generated.

Act Of Generation as supposed to be in the Divine Essence thus an eternal immenant act is just a theology and it has no proof from any verse of Hebraic Bible or New Covenabt what so ever.

This shews that If Logos is not made even then it is spoken , and it is just a term of transative act of speaking . As the act is not eternal the term of the act is also not eternal.

This shews that God Can do Multiple types of acts and act of making is just one type amomg multiple types of acts.

Fifth Discussion:= Three Per Se Subsistent Hypostases any not be three Per Se Subsistent Beings but they are three things.

So Three Per Se Subsistant Hypostases and one Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence are not one thing but several things. If they somehow unite to constitute an other thing then this another thing is a being a being that is constituted by united things.So the word thing can be applied to each one of the Hypostasis and to the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia as well. In more literal style they are included in "ALL" whether there is the English word thing ofter the English word "ALL" or not.

So each thing of the following list is excluded from the Greek Sentence even from the Trinitical Point of view:1] Father 2] Son /Word 3] Holy Ghost/Spirit 4] Divine Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence [Godhead].

So atleast each thing that is stated above is excluded from the Greek Sentence as well.

How ever one does not need to base his discission one each and every thing stated in the fifth discussion since if God is excluded this Greek Sentence is not so General but each and every thing sated above is a thing and each and every thing is excluded from the Greek Sentence not just the Beng which is constituted by each and every thing stated above either by uniting or else.

A trinitarian can say that a Per Se Subsustent Hypostasis is not a Being but the Trinitarian cannot say that a Hypostasis is not a Thing. In this case if each hypostasis in Per Sesubsistent Essence/Ousia can be predicated by the word thing, One can say each Per Se Subsistent in Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia is "Thing" Like each Per Se Subsistent in the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia is "Hypostasis".

If more than one thing is excluded from the Greek Sentence Trinitarians and Unitatians are even, and none of them is odd. So one of them can argue for the Dogma of Trinity or Dogma of Unity from at least from this Greek Sentence.

It is said by trinitarians that the Second Hypostasis proceeds as the term of the immanent act of the intellect.

This act or the procession of the act of the Second Hypostasis is called Generation. The Third Hypostasis proceeds as the term of the act of the Divine will. This act or the procession of the act is called Spiratio. If

these acts are not eternal then their respective terms are also non eternal.

Divine acts of hearing seeing etc. may be called Immanent yet they cannot be Eternal.

Similarly the act of saying, commanding ,speaking are either Immenant or Not .If not then External. In any case their terms are neither eternal nor immemant.

For example consider the act of Making. If the act of making is immenant even then its term the thing made [The made One] is external. If the act of making is external even then its term is external and not immenant.

Now we come to an other problem whether the act of Making is Immenant or External there are some things which must be kept in mind.They are written below:= 1] It is a Transative act in the meaning it does has a term.

2] It is not Eternal otherwise the Eternity of the thing made is implied.

3] This act is issued or proceeded but this act is not made. If it is made then an other act of making is required to make the act of making. Then there is an other act of making to make the act of making stated above. This implies infinite acts of Makings. Thus to each and every act of making there is an act of making to make the act of making implying infinite series of acts and processions of makings. This is impossible.

So the Divine Act of Making is not Eternal and it is not made. If atleast one non eternal act of God is not made then some other acts of God can be neither Eternal Nor Made.

In this case the Divine act of Speaking,Conversing,Ordering and Saying are neither made nor Eternal. They are done or performed etc. The terms of these acts like Spoken words, Spoken Sentences etc. are Not Eternal and Nor Immanent.Yet they are not made like the act of making.

So if it is accepted that Logos is not made even then it is not Eternal and also not Immanent.

If it is Immanent even then it is Not Eternal. If this Hypostasis is in Per Se Subsistent Godhead [Divine Ousia/Essence ] even then it is Not Eternal. If it is External and not Immanent even then it may be Unmade.Sine it is done or performed or proceeded. Just as the act of making is issued or proceeded yet it is Not Eternal.

At this point one must differentiate between the act of making and the ability of making. The Ability to make any thing say universe is Eternal and An Attribute yet the act of making which is either issued or proceeded from this Ability is neither an Attribute not Eternal and also not made. It is either a Proceeding or a Procession but Not Eternal to the degree of Certainty.

Act of hearing and seeing may be claimed to be Immanent yet they are certainly Not Eternal since things are seen or heard when they occur and they do not exist before their occurances.

For example can a Trinitarian claim that That God was seeing Adam even before He made Him, or listening sounds even before they occured.

So if these acts are immanent even then their terms are not.

If they are External then their terms are also external. An external Act with an Immanent term is not accepted even by Trinitarians. One who claims such a thing must provide proofs from authentic Trinitarian sources of Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholics or both.

Sixth Discussion

It may be the case that the work make is incorrectly translated. Either the Greek word "εγενετο " (EGENETO) is translated as Emergence or Happening.

There are several Possible meanings of this word of Greek.

T 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 2a) of events 3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage 3a) of men appearing in public 4) to be made, finished 4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought 5) to become, be made.

Two relatively better translations.

There are two possibilities.

1] Either they are special cases of act of Making.

2] They are acts other than Making.

If it is a special case of Act of Making then If Logos was made then Logos was made not by this Special Case of Making but by any case of making which is not this case.

If this is the case it is incorrect to claim that this Greek Sentence implies that Logos was not Made.

In this case Logos may still be made yet not by this case of making.

This weakens the argument in favour of Logos being Unmade or Eternal or In Per Se Subsistent Godhead of Triune God. If it is an other act then this sentence cannot be used to prover the Eternity etc. of Logos as stated immediately above.

This Greek Word " γινομαι " may mean To become, To be, To happen, To come into being.

See:

Strongs 1096

1096 gínomai primerily means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the verb to be i.e verb "to be" and also not to the ordenary verb to make.

In this case Become may mean a type of transition from one state to an other state. It does not mean to make a thing but to transform a thing either from one form to an other form or from one state to an other state, or to bring a thing into some new style which it was previously not.

Trinitarians do say God become man [Male Human Being] . They do not mean God was made into a man

since God is Unmade, AND NO ONE CAN BE MADE GOD, not even Iesous since accrding to them Iesous is Generated [Bigotten] not Made. How ever they do not use the word becoming in the meaning of mutation or transition or transmutation due to theological reasons but in general Becoming is an alternation or a change from previous form to latter form. How ever they do agree that God or speaking more strictly a Per Se Subsitent Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence of God became some thing which the Hypostasis was Eternally/Initially not.

In this case one may translate the Greek Sentence as follow:=

" All things through him did become, and without him happened not even one thing that hath become"....

If this is the meaning then it mean that all things did become some thing which they were previously not. But what did they become is not mentioned. Since different things become different things. The author of Yohonnon is not trying to make a list of things which these things became.

This means all things changed their forms through Logos and if Logos is excluded from all things this means that Logos remained in its original form and did not became at this even of becoming.

Matthew 8:24 used this word as follow: GRK: σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ

NAS: And behold, there arose a great storm.

This word is not used in the meaning of making.

Matthew 8:26 : and the sea, and it became perfectly calm It does not mean Sea was made or the calmness was made Luke 2:13 GRK: καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἐγένετο σὺν τῷ KJV: And suddenly there was with the angel It does not mean that Angel stated in the Greek sentence was made immediately and he did not existed before this time .

Luke 13:19 GRK: ηὔξησεν καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον and it grew and became a tree, It is not implied that IT did not exist before becoming a tree.

What is the point. If all things were made some of them became some thing which they were initially not.

They became through Logos. But at this moment of time Logos did not became any thing (Supposing that it

is impossible for a thing to become something not without itself). If Logos became Son or Son Of God or Iesous or Kristos he must have became at a latter time not at that time. Since he was used as a Medium to transform other thing at that time.

If it is not impossible then there is no need to answer their argument [argument for the Eternity and Divinity/Godhood of Logos by Trinitarians].

An other example: Acts 7:29 GRK: τούτῳ καὶ ἐγένετο πάροικος ἐν NAS: FLED AND BECAME AN ALIEN This does shew that one who became an alien [Stranger] did exist before this event of alienation.

One may use this Greek word in the meaning of Emergence. That is a made thing was there yet it was not Emerged. The made thing did emerge at a latter period of time ofter it was made.

" All ( things ) through him did emerge, and without him emerged not even one ( thing ) that hath become"....

Sixth Discussion Suppose that "All Things /Panta is used for all beings and it excludes Hypostases. If it is so then then the question is why should one accept Trinitarian Theology that Only Divine Essene/Ousia has Hypostases. Why it is impossible for Non Divine Essences/Ousie of Non Divine Beings to possess Hypostases. Why it is impossible for a Made Essence/ Ousia to have some Hypostases in them. Is it not possible to say that a Made Ousia has some Non Eternal Hypostases. Also can a Hypostasis exist with out Essene/Ousia

[Note this is a proto form and it is not revised. Many errors may be found. But it may still serve as a gift on 11-25-2016. So it is presented with out any revision.