"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God
and the Word was God."

The Issue: The translation of the Greek word theos

The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians generally consider this passage to be the flagship of all their "proof-texts." They claim that Jesus is here identified as "God."

What the Evidence will Show

The facts will show that John did not say "Jesus is God" but that the word was god which is intended to mean the word was divine. Now we need to make it quite clear that this is a completely different concept than the Watchtower claim which insists the verse should be translated as "and the word was A god." The facts will reveal that the most respected scholars of the Trinitarian world do themselves insist that John was not indicating "who" the word was but "what" the word was. By this they mean to emphasize that John intended to tell us the word was divine rather than telling us the word was God by identity. On that matter, we will whole-heartedly agree with them. But the facts will show that capitalizing the word "God" is misleading and completely inconsistent with what they say the verse actually means.

Now let's be clear on this matter. We are going to agree with Trinitarian scholars that the first instance of the word theos is a reference to God the Father, "and the Word was with God. We are also going to agree with Trinitarian scholars that the absence of the definite article in the second instance of theos is significant and John intentionally did not use it for a reason. Even further, we are going to agree with Trinitarian scholars concerning John's intended meaning. However, we will show the Trinitarians to be in error once they ultimately translate this passage into English.

Examination of the Evidence

What John 1:1 doesn't say

Notice that John 1:1 does not actually say the Word is God in the Trinitarian translation. Rather it says the Word was God in the past tense. Also notice it does not say that Jesus was God. It says the Word was God. Trinitarians are taking an unwarranted leap. In verse 14, we are later told the Word became flesh. Clearly, there was a change in the Word's condition. The Word was, the Word became. Neither are we told that Jesus was and then Jesus became. It can easily be understood to say, "the Word was" and then "the Word became flesh, that is,the man Jesus." And indeed, the verse actually says, "the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, glory of an only begotten of the Father." It does appear John is paralleling the idea of becoming flesh and the idea of Jesus being the only begotten of the Father. There are many questions which must be answered before we can properly interpret this passage and answers which Trinitarians do not provide.

The Basic Greek of John 1:1

With respect to the original Greek, John 1:1 is not a difficult passage to translate. One thing we must clearly understand is that John did not use the capitalization conventions we use today. Capitalization conventions developed over the centuries and the convention we use today was not in use until many centuries after John wrote his gospel. What John actually wrote would have looked something like the following if he had written in English:

John wrote in Koine Greek. Modern Greek is significantly different. And today, we do not write John's Greek words in Greek the same way John wrote those same words. Today, we use punctuation, spacing, and sometimes capitalization conventions. John did not use such conventions. The following shows how we write John's Greek words today. The first row uses a Greek alphabet. The second row uses the English alphabet to give you an idea how the word sounds. The third row is a word for word translation into English.

The key word in question is the Greek word theos. This is the Greek word for "deity" or "god." Unlike English, word order has less importance in Greek and what is meant is determined by the inflections that indicate which noun is the subject and which noun is the predicate. While the Greek order of the words is, "and theos was the word," the Greek syntax tells us the word theos belongs to the predicate of the sentence and not the subject. So a literal English translation ends with "and the word was theos." John cannot be saying, "God was the Word" even though this is the order of the words in Greek. Of course, this is something Trinitarian Greek scholars acknowledge and that particular issue is not being disputed.

The Definite Article

In Greek, God was identified by the words "the god" which is written in Greek as ho theos. The Greek word ho is the Greek definite article which functions like the English word "the." You will notice that John actually wrote in Greek "and the Word was with THE theos" in the phrase in the middle of the sentence but he did not write "and the Word was THE theos" in the phrase at the end of the sentence. Rather he simply wrote, "and the Word was theos" without the definite article. Trinitarians scholars recognize this absence of the definite article in the last phrase is very significant as we shall soon see.

The First Instance of theos

The absence of the definite article in the second instance is the critical issue in question. But before we get into the meaning of the second occurrence of the word theos at John 1:1, the first thing we need to clarify is "who" John is talking about at the first occurrence of the word theos in John 1:1 in the phrase, "and the word was with the theos." We find the answer plainly in his first epistle which he opens with an identical theme and similar vocabulary. Carefully observe the parallels between both passages:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us" (1 John 1:1-2).

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were made through this, and without this was not anything made that was made. In this was life, and the life was the light of men" (John 1:1-4).

If we compare John's thoughts in his opening statements of these two books, it is very plainly given to us by John in his first Epistle that we are to understand the first instance of the word theos in his Gospel at John 1:1 is a direct reference to the person of the Father. This is generally accepted by all parties.

But let us remember now that John uses the definite article in John 1:1 when he is using theos in reference to the Father, but he does not use the definite article when he is using theos to refer to the Word. The Father is "the theos" but the Word is simply "theos" without the definite article. Now Trinitarians also agree that the second occurrence is not a reference to the Father. Otherwise, they would have to claim the Word is being identifed as the Father. On this point, there is also no disagreement with Trinitarian scholars.

So if the first instance of theos with the definite article, here and in verse 2, is a reference to the Father, then we come to the critical question at hand: just what is the meaning of the word theos in the second instance in John 1:1 without the definite article? It is here to this question we turn our attention. When we are referring to a word without the definite article, the term used in Greek grammar to describe this condition is the word "anarthrous".

Colwell's Rule

Some Trinitarians like to argue that Colwell’s rule proves that the anarthrous theos must be taken as definite. In other words, even though it doesn't have a definite article, we must treat it as it if did have a definite article. Trinitarians make this claim by appealling to Colwell's rule.

However, as leading Trinitarian scholar Daniel Wallace has pointed out, Colwell’s rule alone does not prove that theos must understood as definite. His rule only says that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article. But the reverse is not necessarily true. Absence of the article in this construction does not itself indicate the noun is definite. In other words, his rule does not insist that it is definite but that if it is implicitly definite then it would lack the article. See "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics," (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 269

And indeed, this is precisely the case we find with leading Trinitarian scholars. They insist theos is NOT definite and John wrote the phrase as he did for a reason as we shall now see. It should not be read as definite but as indefinite and qualitative.

The Testimony of Trinitarian Scholars

The following Trinitarian scholars are well known and respected leading scholars in the world of Trinitarianism. These men do believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. We are not here concerned with their Trinitarian theology but with their opinions regarding John's intended meaning at John 1:1. These scholars also use the habitual Trinitarian terminology of using the English word "God" to describe the divine nature of Jesus and this is also what they say John is telling us about the word. And so we can see here why they always opt to translate John 1:1 as they do. But let us carefully notice they say 3 significant things: (1) the absence of the definite article is very significant and missing for a reason, (2) the presence of a definite article would have indicated that only the Word was theos thereby excluding the Father, or, the presence of a definite article would have indicated that the person of the Word was also the person of the Father (Modalism), and most importantly (4) the phrase is intended to convey “what” the word was rather than “who” the word was. Emphasis is mine.

"And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f." (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, pp. 4-5, underlined emphasis mine).

"The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (Jo. 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 Jo.4:16). "God" and "love" are not convertible terms any more than "God" and "Logos" or "Logos" and "flesh." Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt. 13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (Jo. 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea" (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934, p. 767-768, underlined emphasis mine).

"A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author. "The Word was God." If both God and Word were articular [if they both had the definite article "the"], they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable [Sabellianism]. But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos was God.(A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977) pp. 67-68, underlined emphasis mine).

"The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity."
(C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, S.P.C.K., 1955, p.76).

"On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia [substance (the "what")] of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase.
(C.H. Dodd: New Testament Translation Problems II, The Bible Translator, 28, 1, Jan. 1977), p. 104.)

"'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "the word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..."
(James Moffact, Jesus Christ the Same, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945, p.61).

"Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos."
(Philip B. Harner, Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1, March 1973, p. 87.)

"Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God."
(Henry, Alford, Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II, Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681).

"The predicate [theos) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word."
(B.F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, Eerdmans, 1958 reprint, p. 3.)

The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos.
(H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950, pp. 148-149).

"The Word was God. Here the word "God" is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes."
(Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, "Golden Nuggets," p. 52).

"In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"
(Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209).

"The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not "a God," which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted..."
(W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 vols, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 1:684).

Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When the Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is 'theos', and the definite article is 'ho'. When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say 'theos'; it says 'ho theos'. Now, when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was 'ho theos'; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was 'theos'- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same charactor and quality and essence and being as God. When John said 'The Word was God' he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like." (Barclay, W. The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Dailey Study Bible Series, Saint Andrew Press, p. 39)

"the Word was Divine" (Goodspeed, E.J. An American Translation N.T. 1923).

"the Logos was Divine" (Moffatt, J. The Bible 1950).

"And what God was, the Word was" (New English Bible 1961).

"the Word was Divine" (Schonfield, H.L. Authentic N.T. 1956).

"The Word was with God and shared his nature" (Translator's N.T. 1973).

"and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" (Barclay, W. N.T. 1968).

We have an abundant testimony from leading Trinitarian scholars. Notice how these scholars unanimously agree that John is not indicating who the Word was ("God") but what the Word was (divine). They also insist the definite article is missing for a reason and John necessarily could not have used the definite article because it would thereby have indicated exclusivity. Hence, they all insist that John meant the Word was divine rather than the Word was God by identity. On these points, there is no disagreement with these scholars.

Trinitarian Inconsistency between Interpretation and Translation

However, readers who see the phrase written as, "and the Word was God," are misled into believing John's intention was indeed to tell us WHO the Word was. Notice our scholars above firmly insisted John could not have said, "and the Word was the God." And here is the key issue at hand. The capitalized English word "God" is the equivalent of the Greek term ho theos ("the god") which is precisely what these scholars insist John did not say, did not intend to say, and could not say without excluding the Father. In other words, they are insisting that John could not have said "the word was the god" but turn right around and translate the verse using an English capitalization convention that is equivalent to what they claim John did not and could not have said. The English word "God" indicates the very same thing as the two Greek words ho theos

Since "the god" is an impossible translation according to Trinitarian scholars then so is the capitalized word "God" since both of these terms are intended to convey the exact same idea. The capitalized English word "God" means the same thing as the Greek term "the god" and immediately implies we are referring to a WHO. Trinitarians insist John was not telling us WHO the Word was but what the Word was. So why then do these Trinitarians persist in translating John 1:1 inconsistenly with their own interpretations of the Greek intent? Even though they know very well that John is using the word theos in a qualitative sense to describe the essence or nature of the Word, they continue to allow their own readers believe he is using it in a quantitative sense to identify the word as a personal being known as "God."

Men of Integrity

Occasionally, a true man of integrity comes along and desires to set things straight. His name is James Denny and he is a theologian and Christian author and a Trinitarian. But he also knew the truth of this matter in his heart and refused to buy into the dishonesty. He was writing a letter to one of the scholars we quoted above, W. Robertson Nicoll.

As for your remark that you missed an unequivocal statement that Jesus is God, I feel inclined to say that such a statement seems unattractive to me just because it is impossible to make it unequivocal. It is not the true way to say a true thing . . . The NT says that theos een o logos [the word was God], but it does not say o logos een o theos [the word was the God], and it is this last which is really suggested to the English mind by "Jesus is God." . . . Probably the aversion I have to such an expression as Jesus is God is linguistic as much as theological. We are so thoroughly monotheistic now that the word God, to put it pedantically, has ceased to be an appellative and has become a proper noun: it identifies the being to whom it is applied so that it can stand as the subject of a sentence. In Greek, in the first century, it was quite different. You could say then “Jesus is theos.” But the English equivalent of that is not “Jesus is God” (with a capital G), but, I say it as a believer in his true deity, Jesus is god (with a small g) — not a god, but a being in whom is the nature of the One God ... Jesus is God is the same thing as Jesus = God. Jesus is a man as well as God, in some ways therefore both less and more than God; and consequently a form of proposition which in our idiom suggests inevitably the precise equivalence of Jesus and God does some injustice to the truth." (Letters of Principal James Denny to W. Robertson Nicoll, 1893 – 1917, Hodder and Stoughton, 1920, 121-125, emphasis mine).

Apparently, Mr. Denny's protest was too well founded and fell upon deaf ears.

The Testimony of Origen

Origen was a very brilliant church father and theologian who wrote in the first half of the third century. He was also the head of the theological academy at Alexandria, the most renowned Christian school in Christendom in that time. He wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John. In this commentary, he actually addresses this critical question very carefully.

"We next notice John's use of the article ["the"] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article ["the"], and in some he omits it. He adds the article ["the"] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article ["the"], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article ["the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article ["the"] not without it, so also "the" logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence "the" logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply "the" theos but rather [just] theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom "the" theos (God) is "the" theos (God), as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos ("the god"), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos ("the word") of ho theos ("the god") , who was in the beginning, and who by being with "the" theos ("God") is at all times theos ("god"), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2.)

Now notice that Origen is argued the very same thing. He is insisting the definite article is missing for a reason and that reason is to say the Wor is theos only qualitatively. He further insists that John did not intend to say that the Word was THE God which we would write in English as, "the Word was God." Origen also insists that the Word was not the only true God, a term reserved only for the Father.

Illustrating the Trinitarian Error

When Trinitarians translate the verse as, "the Word was God," the illusion that the Word is being identified as God is created. Such a translation is suggesting John is telling us who the Word was, something which Trinitarian scholars insist John was not saying.

The following table shows how the correct translation compares to other heretical views:

"Eve was Adam" or "Eve was adam"

An excellent way to show the Trinitarian error is by observing a word of a similar nature, the Hebrew word adam. The Hebrew word adam means human being. Since the word simply means "human," both Adam and Eve were called adam by God (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:2). Now if I said, "In the beginning was Eve and Eve was Adam," I would be making a completely false statement. Eve is most certainly not Adam. Adam is "the adam" quantitatively. Eve is simply adam qualitatively, that is, human. Hence, it is completely true to say, "Eve was adam" but it is completely false to say, "Eve was Adam." Notice how a capital letter changed everything.

Capitalization has a purpose. In English it changes the meaning of words. The following table illustrates the power of capitalization:

Note carefully how a capital letter changes everything. It changes words from qualitative meanings to quantitative idenfications. A capitalized word in English has much power and suggestive meaning and the misuse of capitalization can lead to quietly constructed yet tremendous blunders. While Trinitarian scholars insist John meant one thing, they use an English capitalization convention that conveys quite another. You simply cannot say "Eve was Adam" without causing misleading confusion by having people think you were saying, "Eve was human." And John 1:1 is no different.

The Deciding Factor

The deciding factor is admitted by Trinitarian scholars. John did not say and could not have said, "the word was the god." If he had said the Word was "the God," John would have been excluding the Father from identity as "God." However, the term "the god" is exactly the same thing as saying, "the word was God." Why? The English word "God" is the equivalent of the Greek term "the god." Therefore, if John did not say, and could not say, "the word was the god" then he did not say, and could not say, "the word was God" because both expressions are intended to convey the very same concept.

In Greek, one refers to a person by use of a name with a definite article. For example, Jesus is identified as "the jesus." The English equivalent is "Jesus" where the capital "J" replaces the definite article. But we do not even need to have that realization to comprehend the Trinitarian error. The capitalized English word "God" behaves like a name and is used as if it were a name and when it is used in John 1:1 translations, it invites readers to assume John is identifying who the Word was. But Trinitarian scholars admit this is not the case. It is therefore completely wrong, misleading and deceptive and is only there to afford apologists the opportunity to dupe unsuspecting people with the "Jesus is God" routine using two different meanings of that statement as we have demonstrated above. It is high time this disingenuous translation is exterminated among true believers, Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian alike.

The Word was divine... the Word became flesh

As we can also see in John chapter one, there was a change in the Word's condition. The Word was, the Word became. Of course God's Word is divine. My words are the essence of me too. Yet they are not me. In the same way, God's word is not God. God's word was the essence of God. And Trinitarians still have not shown that the Word in view in John 1:1 is actually a person. There is not reason to believe a person is in view until John 1:14, "the Word became flesh... the only begotten of the Father.."

Summation of the Facts

• There is no definite article modifying the second instance of theos in John 1:1



• Leading Trinitarian scholars all agree that John did not use the definite article here for a reason



• These Trinitarian scholars insist that John did not use the definite article because that would have indicated exclusivity (only the Word was theos thereby excluding the Father).



• These Trinitarian scholars insist that John was not telling us who the Word was but what the Word was, that is, divine by nature.



• The capitalized English word "God" is a word equivalent to the Greek term "the god" and is used for identifying purposes and leads people to think a personal being is being identified. This is precisely what Trinitarian scholars insist John did not intend.



• Trinitarian scholars are insisting that John intended to say one thing but are then using an English language convention that says quite another.

Call for Discernment

While this issue can seem a bit complicated for some people, a litte thought and reflection will reveal that the Trinitarian translation of John 1:1 is a misleading mistranslation. Leading Trinitarian scholars unanimously agree there is no possible way that John could have intended to say the Word was with the God and the Word was the God because then he would have been necessarily saying the Word was the person the Word was also with. There is no other reasonable option but to conclude John was indicating what the Word was by nature as these scholars insist. However, this is not what the English word "God" suggests to English speaking readers who assume that particular word is used when someone is being identified. Therefore, the only viable options are to translate the passage as, "the Word was god," meaning "the Word was divine." Of course, the Trinitarian also mistakenly assumes that if the Word is divine by nature the Word is also then God by identity which is as absurd as assuming that since Eve is adam by nature then Eve is Adam by identity. Hence, when all the facts are carefully analyzed we can see the Trinitarian claim is groundless.

Father.... that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent. (John 17:3).