1 John 5.20 – Christ is not the true God?

Hi Nick,

Not sure what your getting at here?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Nick,

Your wording is fuzzy again; rather than just say No, I'll fix it so I can say Yes.
Jesus was baptized in water and [received] the Spirit at the Jordan [river].    …yes, that is what Scripture tells us.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Jammin,

So you say “No” to #1, and “Yes” to #2; right?        <– Please answer

I ask because I want to be certain what you believe,
so that there is no miscommunication between us; OK?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

No.

christ (from Greek) or messiah (from heb) both mean “anointed one.” These words are used for others who are anointed in the Bible. And often, it is just translated “anointed one.”

From the Greek, it seems to break down like this:

1 John 5:20

We have known but that the Son of the God is come and he has given to us mental perception in order that we are knowing the true (one) and we are in the true (one) in the Son of him to Jesus Christ This (one) is the true God and life everlasting

It bugs me a little that these verses are always the ones that can so easily be understood in 2 completely different ways.

Is Jesus the true one?
Or did Jesus give us the ability to know the true one (God)?

This verse really comes down to who you think the true one is. If you think it's Jesus, then this is proof that Jesus is God.
If you think it's saying that Jesus told us who the true one (God) is, then this verse is saying that this true one (God) is the true God and life everlasting.

So, it's not great proof for anything. Of course, we can find Bible translations that we prefer that make the interpretation lean one way or the other. But that is not proof of anything.

Hi Nick, now I see where you going.

In Acts 10:43-47, you “should” be able to see
that water baptism is UNNECESSARY. (1Cor.1:14-16)
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through
his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the HolySpirit fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles
also was poured out the gift of the HolySpirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the HolySpirit as well as we?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Jammin, thanks for clarifying your position!

Yes, but that is what we are here to do. Enlighten,
and discuss scripture in a Christian manor; don't you agree?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

I'm not trying to disprove or prove anything here.

I know that cannot be done either way with this scripture.

I am merely pointing out that this is a bad scripture to base something like this on, since it can so easily be understood in more than one way.

“We are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. THIS is the true God and life everlasting.”

Who is “THIS” referring to?

You think that the demonstrative pronoun “this” (hou′tos) refers to its immediate antecedent, Jesus Christ.

But some believe that the most natural reference of hou′tos is to the subject not locally nearest but dominant in the mind of the apostle–God.

Haupt makes a good point: “A testimony to the one true God seems more in harmony with the final warning against idols than a demonstration of the divinity of Christ.”

Even A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, published by Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute, states: “[Hou′tos]: as a climax to [verses] 18-20 the ref[erence] is almost certainly to God the real, the true, [in] opp[osition to] paganism (v. 21).”

Often hou′tos, generally translated “this” or “this one,” does not refer to the immediately preceding subject of a phrase. Other scriptures illustrate the point. At 2 John 7, the same apostle and penman of the first letter wrote: “Many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This [hou′tos′] is the deceiver and the antichrist.” Here the pronoun cannot refer to the closest antecedent—Jesus. Obviously, “this” refers to those who denied Jesus. They collectively are “the deceiver and the antichrist.”

The apostle John wrote: “Andrew the brother of Simon Peter was one of the two that heard what John said and followed Jesus. First this one [hou′tos] found his own brother, Simon.” (John 1:40, 41) It is evident that “this one” refers, not to the last person mentioned, but to Andrew. At 1 John 2:22, the apostle uses the same pronoun in a similar way.

Luke makes similar use of the pronoun, as seen at Acts 4:10, 11: “In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you impaled but whom God raised up from the dead, by this one does this man stand here sound in front of you. This [hou′tos′] is ‘the stone that was treated by you builders as of no account that has become the head of the corner.’” The pronoun “this” clearly does not refer to the man who was healed, though he is the one mentioned just before hou′tos. Certainly, “this” in verse 11 refers to Jesus Christ the Nazarene, who is the “cornerstone” on which the Christian congregation is founded.—Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4-8.
Acts 7:18, 19 also illustrates the point: “There rose a different king over Egypt, who did not know of Joseph. This one [hou′tos] used statecraft against our race.” “This one” who oppressed the Jews was, not Joseph, but Pharaoh, the king of Egypt.

Such passages confirm the observation made by Greek scholar Daniel Wallace, who says that for Greek demonstratives, “what might be the nearest antecedent contextually might not be the nearest antecedent in the author’s mind.”

SO, IT DOESN'T MATTER that the name Jesus was closest to the “this.” It matters what was on the mind of the writer.