Go back to: or of the Trinity/Binity series.
DOES ROMANS 8:9 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?It is thought by some that "the spirit of God" here is the same as "Christ's spirit" later in the verse. However, as brought out in the context in verses 10 and 11 [par|int], this verse is saying that "Christ's spirit" is the qualifier to receive God's holy spirit. That is, in order to have union with God, one must have union with Christ, just as Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6 [par|int]) By not unerstanding that, one misses the point of this Scripture entirely. (See DOES ACTS 16:7 PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD? in part 12  for more details.) Having "Christ's spirit" is having a "spirit" in the same sense as having "the spirit of wisdom" or "of disobedience". It is an attitude that one adopts. Thus we must adopt the attitude, or spirit, of Christ in order to receive God's holy spirit. God's holy spirit "dwells" in us, but Christ's spirit is something we possess, making it, his attitude, part of ourselves.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The context shows that this scripture is saying that one must first be in line with Christ's spirit in order to receive God's holy spirit.
DOES ROMANS 9:5 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?The interpretation of this text is hotly disputed by Bible translators, so that they only thing they can agree on is that one's bias is what must be applied under the circumstances. And, of course, Trinitarians will advocate for any interpretation of the text that suggests that Jesus is God. The Greek phrase is “ho on epi panton Theos eulogetos eis tous aionas amen”. Their moving “God” between “on” and “epi” (ABPE, NIV, NLT, ESV, Berean, Holman, ISV, Jubilee, NET, and TEV,) is a blatant disregard of the Greek language and requires adding a spurious “who is” to the verse to make it work. Thus, that rendering is an obvious perversion of the text. To demonstrate, lets consider the origin for this interpretation.
They believe that Revelation 1:8 [par|int] justifies translating Romans 9:5 as “who is God”, but let’s look closely at Revelation 1:8 by doing what they do to Romans 9:5: “the one who is the Almighty, and who was and who is coming.” As you can see, such careless translation would completely alter the meaning of the text. Note that the original text does not say “who is the Almighty” in any translation, but says “who is, who was and who is coming.” That is because “the Almighty” is a separate statement. Because the answer to “who is” is not found in “the Almighty,” but in “I am”. Thus “the Almighty” is not a referral for “who is”, but is a statement about who “I” is, that is, “I am . . . the Almighty.” At Romans 9:5, there is no such question about Jesus in the verse. It says, “Jesus Christ descends . . . ”, not “Jesus Christ is . . . “. Thus “God” is not a statement about who Jesus Christ is.
Now, a translator worth his salt would abandon his bias and would consider the flow of what is being said and recognize a significant shift in subject. It is a complete statement to say, “To them the forefathers belong, and from them the Christ descended according to the flesh.” To add “who is over all” to that statement is a complete non sequitur, having nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Thus, those words belong to an altogether different statement. Therefore, what follows is the typical statement about God common to Paul’s writings, saying, word-for-word, “The [One] being over all, God, eulogized to the ages. Amen,” in line with Romans 1:25 [par|int] and 2 Corinthians 11:31 [par|int], which clearly distinguish God from Christ. The statement in Romans 9:5 is self-contained and thus has only one possible referent: God. Thus, our rendering considers this contextually isolated statement as “God who is over all, be praised forever. Amen.” Another possible rendering, conceded by those fair to the subject, is: "He who is over all, God, be praised forever. Amen." To say that it is Christ who is God suddenly renders the statement fractious and distracting.
Why would Paul insert this statement about God here? Because it was Jewish custom to praise God when speaking of salvation by God, often through the messiah as a separate being, (1 Chronicles 16:35, 36 [par|int]; Psalm 89:51, 52 [par|int]) or when referring to something that dishonors God, (Romans 1:25 [par|int]) or in pronouncing a curse. (Numbers 5:22 [par|int])
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The statement in question is a non sequitur unless it stands alone. The text in question is best understood as being a self-contained blessing toward God, not Christ. It is only understood in relation to Jewish custom as related in the Scriptures and Paul’s other letters, which clearly distinguish God from Christ.
DO ROMANS 10:9-13 [par|int] AND 1 CORINTHIANS 1:2 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?1 Corinthians 1:2 is claimed to be a reference to praying to Jesus, as some believe that this is referring to such texts as Psalm 116:4 [par|int] or Joel 2:32 [par|int]. However, Romans 10:8-15 [par|int] demonstrates what it means to "call upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ," that is to "publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord" while exercising faith in his resurrection by God. Peter indicated this meaning when he said, "There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved." (Acts 4:12 [par|int]; See DOES ACTS 4:12 PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD? for more details.) So what does it mean to "publicly declare" Jesus name? In verse 8 [par|int], just before the above text, Paul wrote, "'The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart'; that is, 'the word' of faith, which we are preaching."
However, because the apostle Paul directly quotes Joel 2:32 [par|int] at Romans 10:13 [par|int], it has led some to believe that it is associating the name "Jehovah" with Jesus in verse 10 [par|int], which says that "if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, . . . . you will be saved." However, this assumption ignores the text immediately prior, which says that Jesus was raised up, not simply by "the Father", nor did he resurrect himself, but was resurrected by "God", who is Jehovah. (verse 9 [par|int]; Isaiah 42:8 [par|int]) To declare Jesus to be "Lord," means to recognize him as an actual "lord" or ruler, not by the substitute text for the divine name. By doing this, one must recognize the resurrection of the appointed king of God's kingdom by Jehovah God, as verse 9 brings out. Jesus was "made . . . Lord" by God, thus he did not start out as such, and therefore it is not referring to the divine name. (Acts 2:36 [par|int]) However, by preaching the name of Jesus, one also makes known the name of his Father, Jehovah, the only name of God. (Exodus 3:15 [par|int]; Colossians 3:17 [par|int]); John 17:6 [par|int]) By interpreting it as praying to Jesus, one misses the meaning of the text talking about bearing witness to Jesus, as the resurrected Son of God, as an integral part of our salvation.
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Calling upon Jesus simply means to give a public demonstration of your faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ through preaching. It is not the same as saying that Jesus is God. References to Jesus being "Lord" have nothing to do with the divine name or with godship, as indicated by the context and other Scriptures.
DO EPHESIANS 1:22-23 [par|int] AND COLOSSIANS 1:17-19 [par|int] AND 2:9 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Many translations render Colossians 2:9 similar to the NKJV, which says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Others translate it as the NIV, which says, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." However, the original word, here translated as "Godhead", "Deity" or "Divinity" comes from the Koine Greek, "theotetos" or "God character" or "quality of God", from "theos" and "ethos". The word “ethos” (From which "ethic" is derived,) refers, not to the actual person, but to their character, their personality traits, in the sense of the qualities of a person, such as "He is a person of outstanding character, being forthright and hardworking." However, some translators refuse to recognize this word as a combining form, yet have no explanation for the addition of "etos" at the end.
The sum of the scriptures support the "divine quality" viewpoint. At Hebrews 1:3 [par|int] it explains, “He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being.” (See DOES HEBREWS 1:3 PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD below.) Jesus is no more than Adam was. (Genesis 1:26 [par|int]) The “reflection” ("image"), or “representation” (“likeness”), is not the person. It merely indicates that Jesus expresses God's character by example, just as was written, “For 'who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?' But we do have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:16 [par|int]) Thus, through the mind of Christ, who represents the embodiment of God's qualities, not God himself, we can come to know God, who does not dwell among men. (Numbers 23:19 [par|int]; Job 32:13 [par|int]; Acts 17:24 [par|int])
So what of the "fullness"? Paul wrote of the "fullness" on other occasions. The context also gives us a clearer understanding of what Paul meant by "theotetos". In the very next verse he says, "you have acquired a fullness by means of him." (Colossians 2:10 [par|int]) So are we to assume that the holy ones are also part of God as Trinitarians claim Jesus is? Of course not. Do you see where Trinitarians/Binitarians are going wrong here? The Greek "theotetos" clearly does not mean "deity", but refers to his God-given authority to give fullness to the world.
At Colossians 1:17-19 [par|int] Paul explains his meaning by "fullness" when he writes, "him, the one who is the head of all government and authority." Where did he get this authority? At Ephesians 3:17-19 [par|int], Paul wrote:
"May you be rooted and established on the foundation, in order that with all the holy ones you may be thoroughly able to comprehend fully what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of the Christ, which surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness that God gives."Thus the "fullness" is a gift from God. In fact, at Ephesians 4:10 [par|int] Paul said, "The very one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might give fullness to all things." Thus, this "fullness" is to be given out as a gift. But now, there still remains the question of what exactly this gift, this "fullness", is. Thankfully, before his death, John gave us the answer: "For we all received from his fullness, even undeserved kindness upon undeserved kindness." (John 1:16 [par|int]) Thus, the fullness brings salvation.
But this fullness, as indicated above, has to do with the entire true Christian congregation. Thus, Paul wrote:
"And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love." (Ephesians 4:11-16 [par|int])Note that just like Colossians 2:9 [par|int], this is referring to rejecting things that disrupt the harmoy of the Christian congregation and being harmoneously united.
Thus, "the fullness of the theotetos" at Colossians 2:9 [par|int] is a cohesive doctrine referring to the Christ's God-given authority to bring God's gift of salvation to the world by means of the harmonious operation of the true Christian congregation and we have salvation, fullness, through the accurate knowledge of him and the means to help him bring it to others. For we are made complete (full) in Christ, who is the gift from God. We are empty, or incomplete, otherwise.
By interpreting those Scriptures as indicating that Jesus is God, one completely misses the meaning of the message being related.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Misleading translations ignore the meaning of the Greek word "theotetos". Other scriptures clarify how Jesus merely demonstrates the qualities of God. The context indicates the meaning of "theotetos" by speaking of the "fullness," which is a doctrine of becoming "full" or complete through the salvation by means of Jesus Christ.
DOES PHILIPPIANS 2:5-7 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?These verses speak of Jesus "existing in God's form" and "emptying himself to take a slave's form" and so Triitarians/Binitarians claim that this means that Jesus is God. However, if that were so, then we would have to take the latter as true as well, that it speaks not of becoming flesh, but of becoming a slave. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever. So the question is what is really meant by "form"?
The Greek word "morphe" refers not to a specific individual's body, but to the characteristics of that body, its shape or substance. By referring to "a slave's form" he is clearly referring to human flesh, that is, the substance within which his consciousness resides. Thus, by speaking of "God's form", Paul was speaking of the form in which God's consciousness resides. Thus, since God is an invisible spirit, "existing in God's form" means to exist as an invisible spirit being. (1 Timothy 1:17 [par|int])
As to his emptying himself, this would be impossible if it were God because "The heaven of the heavens themselves cannot contain [God]" (1 Kings 8:27 [par|int]; compare Acts 17:24 [par|int]) and since the person of God could not have ceased to exist at any time, he could not have died, otherwise he would not be able to resurrect himself. (Ecclesiastes 9:5 [par|int], 10 [par|int]; Habakkuk 1:12 [par|int]) That is why the Scripture says, "[God] is not a man". (Job 9:32 [par|int] 32:13 [par|int])
As to how verse 6 is to be translated, the mangled translation of the King James Version at Philippians 2:5-6 [par|int] reads: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." So, we're supposed to have Christ's attitude, believing it's "not robbery to be equal to God"? The context that leads to this verse says in verse 3 [par|int]: "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." (KJV) Obviously, according to the context, using Jesus as an example was meant to show that Jesus did not "seize" equality with God. Do you see where some Trinitarians/Binitarians miss the point?
Thus, the New World Translation, along with many other modern translations, (ESV, Berean, NASB, NET, NAS, KJV2000, ASV, ERS, WEB) properly renders verse 6 according to the context, saying he "gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." Or put a simpler way, "did not consider grasping at equality with God." But note that it says "God" and not "the Father". If Jesus were God, this would not make any sense whatsoever.
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The "form" spoken of refers to the shape or substance apart from the consciousness, as it does to the slave's form. The context shows that Christ did not grasp at equality with "God", not simply "the Father".
DOES 1 TIMOTHY 3:15, 16 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?It is believed by Trinitarians that 1 Timothy 3:15-16 is saying that God was the one who was manifested. Peerhaps this is understandable given the ambiguous usage of "who" or "he who" ("he" is also acceptable) in verse 16. A problem arises in that verse wen some translations inject the word "God" in an effort to clarify the ambiguity. Because it is in the nominative case, meaning that it is a referal to a subject, they choose to believe that "God" is the subject because of his being an accusative subject two sentences earlier.
However, this ambiguity also occurs in modern English. We can refer to a person not previously identified because of the audience's knowing who is being referenced. Thus, it is referring back to the one person about whom such things have always been said through the salvation message preached, which says, "the Son of God was made manifest," and not God himself. (1 John 3:8 [par|int])
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The type of ambiguity in this verse is common in English. It is ambiguously stated because the subject of "who" is obviated by the identifiers that follow which point to other scriptures clearly identifying "the Son of God" rather than "God".
DOES 1 TIMOTHY 6:13-16 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Ambiguous phrasing appears to refer to Jesus and God interchangeably. However, if one understands "The happy and only Potentate . . . the one alone having immortality" to be a different person, namely Jehovah God, then the distinction between God and Jesus is made clear. How can we be sure that God alone, and not Jesus, is the Potentate? Because it says, "the . . . only Potentate". A "potentate" is a ruler with great power, and to say "only potentate" is to indicate total sovereignty. A similar use of "only" occurs at 1 Timothy 1:17 [par|int] to also refer to God.
Indeed, in line with so many other Scriptures, this potentate is the only one "whom not one of men has seen or can see," a trait only recognized toward God. (John 1:18 [par|int]; 6:46 [par|int]) Christ, on the other hand, has been seen, even after his resurrection and will be perceived at his manifestation spoken of here. The only one of the two in the scriptures referred to as “the happy God”, "the only true God" and "sovereign Lord" is Jehovah God. (John 17:3 [par|int]; Acts 4:24-30 [par|int]; 1 Timothy 1:11 [par|int])
So what is this phrasing meant to say? By focusing on the primary objects of the phrase, removing any statements not necessary to the meaning of the phrasing, and clearly identifying the potentate, we see that it is saying "Before God . . . and Christ Jesus . . . I give you orders . . . to observe the commandment . . . until the manifestation . . . which the happy and only Potentate [God] will show in [the manifestation's] own appointed times."
The manifestation, of course, is of Christ Jesus whose participation as that which is manifested should not be confused with the potentate who makes him manifest. Thus the potentate is not the participant in the manifestation, but is the one who shows, or reveals, the manifestation. This is because, according to Jesus own words, "the manifestation of his presence" will be revealed at different times, first to those who have eyes to see him, and then to the rest of the world after the tribulation. (Matthew 24:27-30 [par|int]; 2 Thessalonians 2:8 [par|int]) It is revealed by God, not Jesus, through holy spirit. (Daniel 2:28 [par|int]; 1 Corinthians 2:10 [par|int])
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Understanding who the "only Potentate" is makes the roles clear. Only God matches up to the full description given in other scriptures. Those things are never said of Jesus.
DOES TITUS 2:13 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Trinitarians/Binitarians claim that this verse is calling Jesus "our great God and Savior". However, the original Greek of that verse is grammatically identical to 2 Thessalonians 1:12 [par|int], which clearly separates God and Jesus in NIV, ESV, Berean, NASB, KJV, Holman, NET, NHEB, ABIPE, Jubilee, ASV, Douay-Rheims, Darby, ERV, Webster's, Weymouth and WEB Bibles because the context shows them to be separate. Note that the King James Version also distinguishes God and Christ at Titus 2:13.
Thus, in the very same versions that try to make it appear that God and Jesus are the same in this verse because the context does not make it clear, identify them as separate in a verse with identical grammar in 2 Thessalonians because there is no way around it. Consistency would dictate that God and Jesus be identified as separate even at Titus 2:13 for the very reason that the context dictates it with the same grammar in 2 Thessalonians and, indeed, throughout the entire Bible.
That is why the 2013 New World Translation presents the verse this way: "While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ."
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The same grammar in a similar verse in most Bible translations indicate a clear distinction between God and Jesus according to context. In fact, the context of the entire Bible also dictates the difference.
DOES HEBREWS 1:3 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Here, Jesus is described as "the reflection of [God's] glory and the exact representation of his very being." Other translations render this verse as "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." However, to clearly understand this verse and translate it properly, we merely need to understand what the Greek word "apaugasma" means and what a "representation" is.
Thayer's Greek and English Lexicon says that "apaugasma" means "reflect brightness", and is supported by the extra-biblical Greek dictionary, Sophocles Lexicon. Other translations rendering this word as "reflect" or "reflection" include ISV, GWT, and Weymouth. The word "apaugaxo" is the word that means to emit brightness, while apaugasma means to reflect it.
Likewise, a "representation" or "expression", from "charakter" in Greek, is not the thing it represents no matter how closely it "represents" or "expresses" it. The Greek word does not hold the meaning and connotation that the modern English word holds. In Koiné Greek, this word was used in carving and engraving to mean that it captures the essence of that which is represented. That is why Douay-Rheims rendered it "figure". Why specify "representation" if he is that personage? It does not make any sense whatsoever. He is no more Jehovah himself than a carved idol would be.
The representative is merely standing in or acting in behalf of another. Thus Jesus "reflects" God's glory like a mirror, and represents perfectly his God. Adam was 'made in God's likeness', "in God's image he made him". The original Hebrew word for "likeness" means "representation", and the Hebrew word for "image" refers to a "reflection" as in a mirror. So is Adam God too? Of course not.
The next verse at Hebrews 1:4 [par|int] says that Jesus "became better than the angels" and "inherited a name more excellent than theirs". This language continues at Hebrews 5:8-9 [par|int] which says that Jesus was "made perfect". God is already perfect. Of course, not being "perfect" does not mean "sinful", but means there is place for sin to arise, namely through disobedience, just as Adam sinned though having been made in God's image and likeness. But once Jesus was "made perfect" after "he learned obedience from the things he suffered" there was no place for sin left. Jesus himself said, "A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly instructed will be like his teacher." (Luke 6:40 [par|int]) Does this mean, then, that if someone is perfectly instructed by God that they become God? Of course not. It is merely that their instruction would become identical to God's instruction, but it is still God's instruction merely being passed down through another. Thus, that student would merely exactly reflect God's instruction.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: A clear understanding of the original Greek word, "apogasma", and the context reveals that Jesus is not emitting God's glory, but reflects God's glory through his teachings and example.
DOES HEBREWS 1:5 [par|] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Some try to claim that Jesus could not be an angel because Paul quoted 2 Samuel 7:14 [par|int], saying, "to which of his angels did God ever say . . . ?" However, this reasoning ignores verse 4, which says that he "became better than the angels." It also ignores the sentence that follows the quote, saying, "But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth . . . " (Verse 6 [par|int]) thus showing that he is talking about after Jesus is brought into the world.
So Jesus was once an angel and became lower than the angels when he became human. (Verse 7 [par|int]) When he became human, he was no longer an angel, and as a human, he was declared God's Son, (Matthew 3:17 [par|int]) and at his resurrection declared God's Son according to the spirit. (Romans 1:4 [par|int]) After ascending to heaven, he "became better than the angels". But verse 4 puts a limit to it. It says, "to the extent . . . ", namely, he does not become God, but merely "inherited a name more excellent than theirs". He inherited the name, granted to him by Jehovah, by his being declared God's Son.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The surrounding verses make it clear that 2 Samuel 7:14 applied to Jesus while he was human and that he at no time had all of God's authority.
DOES HEBREWS 1:10-12 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?It is believed by Trinitarians/Binitarians that Paul was applying the words of Psalm 102:25-27 [par|int] to the messiah. However, these verses are a reference, not to the messiah, but to the words of the messiah. At Psalm 102:23 [par|int], it indicates the messiah by referring to having cut short his days and indicates Christ's prayer in verse 24.
So how does the messiah's prayer in the Psalm relate to the context of Hebrews chapter 1? The surrounding text is comparing him to his former co-equal "companions", the angels. The subject of the messiah's words is the wearing away of the old heavens, that is, the old arrangement in heaven, the way things were before he came to earth, but after his ascension, the situation in heaven had changed. However, Jehovah God's plan had remained unchanged. Jehovah does not die, but Jesus did and when he was resurrected, a change took place in heaven in which he had "become better than the angels." The old heavens had worn away, and now the new heavens, (the new arrangement,) were being put in place.
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The text quoted was the prophesied words of the messiah himself regarding the very change in circumstances in heaven that Paul was talking about regarding Jesus' change in relation to his angelic companions.
DOES HEBREWS 7:15-16 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?
This scripture is used by Trinitarians/Binitarians as proof that Jesus is God because they believe it is him that it claims is an "indestructible life", showing that he could not die and only his body died. However, note that the subject is Jesus’ similarity to Malchizedek. Jesus, like Malchizedek, did not have an indestructible life. But he "became high priest" "by the power of an indestructible life", that is, Jehovah God, "King of eternity" (1 Timothy 1:17 [par|int],) as neither Malchizedek. nor Jesus Christ appointed themselves, nor does simply being immortal make one a high priest, and certainly Malchizedek was not immortal. (Hebrews 3:1, 2 [par|int]) Jesus will "be a priest forever" because his life depends upon the one whose life is indestructible. (Hebrews 7:21 [par|int]) Also, it was not in his own power that he became Christ, (Hebrews 5:5, 6 [par|int]) but it is in God's power, "the power of an indestructible life," that Jesus was made alive. (Romans 1:4 [par|int]; 1 Peter 3:18 [par|int])
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The subject is by what means Malchizedek came to be high priest, not whether Jesus or Malchizedek are immortal.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The spurious interjection of the words "of God" inappropriately confuse the text and are not based upon any other Bible text.
DOES 1 JOHN 5:20 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Some claim that "this is the true God" was referencing "Jesus Christ" at the end of the previous phrase, but it is actually referencing "the true one" in that sentence, which was the actual subject of the sentence ("We are in union with the one who is true, by means of his Son. . . . "), "true" to "true". "Jesus Christ" was a secondary object in the sentence, therefore, he could not be the referential of "this" in the sentence that followed.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: "The true God" references the subject, "the one who is true", the Father of Jesus Christ.
Start at Part 1
Go to: Part 13: What Definitively Proves That Jesus is Not God