Trinity on Trial An in-depth examination of Trinitarian doctrine
Quick Reference


Verse
Remarks
Genesis 1:26 Misinterpretation. This verse does not indicate the numerical value of the plural group "us." Trinitarians imagine their preconceived three person God into the passage. God belongs to the group "us" but it is not necessarily true all beings in the group "us" are "God" who is speaking on behalf of the group. The Jews intepreted this passage to mean God speaking on behalf of his angels. Early Christians believed it was God speaking on behalf his Son. It could mean both.
Genesis 18:1-33Misinterpretation. These three men were angels, which are often simply called "men" in the Scriptures, and were not three persons of a Triune God. Jesus and John and Paul taught that no one has seen God or can see God. You simply cannot have the Father and the Holy Spirit walking around with Abraham and then have Jesus teach that no one has ever seen God or you make Jesus out to be a liar. The Angel of the Lord is often described as God himself because his speaking on behalf of God but no one would say God was an angel.
Isaiah 9:6Misinterpretation/Mistranslation. The Hebrew word el which is often translated as "God" does not precisely mean the same thing as the English word "God" but is a less restrictive word with a wider scope of meaning and is a Hebrew way of referring to God as "The Power" or "The Mighty One" and this word is used of God, angels, men, and even inanimate objects where it is translated as "mighty" or "power." Although it is acceptable to translate el as "God" in most cases, this is because that word is referring to God, not because it means the same thing as the English word "God." The words el gibbor, both connotate the idea of "power" or "strength" or "mightiness" and really mean something similar to the English words "Mighty Power" or "Powerful Mighty One" or "Mighty Warrior." The Hebrew word el is a descriptive appellation for God in Hebrew, in the same sense we use the English expression "the almighty" which by itself does not mean "God," but is a way of referring to God in English. Also, to claim Jesus is the "Everlasting Father" is non-Trinitarian Sabellianism but some Trinitarians do not realize that fact.

Matthew 1:23Misinterpretation. The immediate context shows that the name "God with us" is meant to convey the idea that God was with Israel purposefully in the plan and purpose of salvation, not God with Israel in geographical location, sending Jesus whose name means "salvation" to "save them from their sins." In this way, the Jews could say "God is with us" in plan and purpose. The word Immanuel is also used in Isaiah chapter 8 where we can also see that it was intended in the same manner.
Matthew 2:2,11Misinterpretation.The Greek word commonly translate here as "worship" simply means "to bown down before." The passage says that the Magi came to bow down before (proskyneo) the King of the Jews. The Magi were not Trinitarians who believed Jesus was God. Also, there is no Biblical prohibition from bowing down to a higher authority and there are many examples in the Old Testament of saints doing so. The Biblical prohibition concerns bowing down to other gods as God.
Mark 2:7Misinterpretation. The context and parallel account at Matthew 9:1-8 show us clearly that the very point of this account is to show that God had given authority to men and Matthew tells us this explicitly. Trinitarians make the very same mistake as the Pharisees.
John 1:1Mistranslatation. Trinitarian scholars themselves agree that the second occurrence of the Greek word theos at John 1:1 does not refer to "who" the Word was but "what" the Word was. However, the capital "G" in the second instance of theos is extremely misleading because it invites the English reader to assume John is telling us "who" the Word was and identifying the Word as "God.". It should be translated as "and the Word was god" where it is understood that this is the same saying "and the Word was deity."
John 1:18Misrepresentation.A simple comparison of translations reveals that there are two separate manuscript traditions for this passage and it cannot be demonstrated that the manuscript tradition which contains the word "God" is correct. Moreover, such a wording would seem to create two Gods.
John 5:18Misinterpretation. God is indentified here as the Father of Jesus and Jesus is identified as the Son of God. The Jews were upset because Jesus was thereby also claiming to have a divine origin in God the Father making himself the same as God. The Greek word here often translated as "equality" means "same as." The Word that was diety then became flesh but was still that same Word that was begotten out of God at creation and as such the purpose of that Word was, is, and always will be, divine. Jesus was not claiming to be "God" but the Son of God his Father and in so doing claiming his origins to be in God and as such the Jews were angered that he claimed to be God's son. They eventually charged him not with claiming to be "God" but with claiming to be "son of God" (19:7). Also, the idea that having some kind of similarity with God therefore makes one God by identity is based on a Trinitarian false premise.
John 8:58Misinterpretation.Jesus appears to have simply said, "I am before Abraham" to indicate he was existing prior to Abraham giving him precedence over all the sons of Israel (1:30). The blind man in the very next chapter (9:9) also simply said, "I AM," yet the Trinitarian does not consistently claim this man was claiming to be God. Moreover, the name "I AM" (YHWH) comes from Exodus 3:14 where it is the angel of YAHWEH who said "I AM" and the Trinitarian does not consistently claim the angel was claiming to be God either. Jesus goes to much length in John to explain to us words are not his own but his Father's who sent him. In fact, he even says to the Father when he is praying, "I have made known your name" (17:26). Just as the angel of Yahweh was the agent and voice of God on Mount Sinai, so also Jesus is the Word of God and was his voice to the people of Israel. Due to the nature of John's use of the words ego eimi, it is very unlikely that Jesus was using the divine name, but even if he was, all anyone can say is that God was speaking about himself since Jesus was God's Word, that is, God's Word is not "I AM" but his Word declares God himself is "I AM."
John 10:30Misinterpretation. Jesus indicates right here in the context of this passage that the way he is one with the Father is in plan and purpose in the works that he did. Also see John 3:2; 14:8-11; Matt 12:28; Acts 2:22; 10:36,38. Being the Word of God the Word of God has the divine purpose of God. Indeed the church and the Father and Jesus are one (Jn 14:20; 17:23) and we would not conclude the church is therefore "God."
John 14:9Misinterpretation. Jesus explains repeatedly that no one has seen God the Father in substance and to claim that to see Jesus in substance is to see the Father in substance is ridiculous. Jesus tells us repeatedly in the Gospel of John that the Father was seen in what Jesus did, not in what he was in substance. John tells us that God is even seen in us when we love one another (1 John 4:12). Jesus is talking about function and purpose here, not substance of nature.
John 20:28Misinterpretation. A close examination of the teachings of Jesus in John's gospel quickly reveals that Thomas was affirming what Jesus had taught the disciples all along, that he and the Father were one and to see him was to see the Father. Jesus had taught them "I and the Father are one" where he also at length explained that they were one in plan and purpose (see 14:10). Now, being glorified, Jesus was now also one with God the Father in bodily substance, his Spirit and Jesus' flesh having become one (see 1 Cor 15:45) and Thomas is affirming that Jesus and the Father are one and that to see him is to see the Father which is also why Jesus then goes on to say that blessed are those who do not see but believe.
Acts 20:28Misinterpretation/Mistranslation. This passage has two problems associated with it. First there are manuscripts which do not say "church of God" but say "church of the Lord." Irenaeus who wrote about 185 A.D. quotes the passage as "church of the Lord." Secondly, the phrase actually reads, "which he purchased through the blood of his own" and it was very common in Koine Greek to imply an unmentioned noun here and this is revealed in the New Testament with several examples right in this same book of Acts. If "church of God" is taken to be correct, and that alone is highly debatable, the text likely means "blood of his own Son" See RSV and ASV.
Romans 9:5Mistranslatation. The structure of the Greek grammar used by Paul at Romans 9:5 allows for three translation possibilities. The vocabulary, style and thought in Paul's other letters demand that it be translated as "Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed forever. Amen." or "Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen." See RSV and NAB.
Philip 2:5-7Misinterpretation. The passage does not say that Jesus was God, but was in the form "of" God, which of course is true since he was begotten of God. The text also says he "emptied" himself or "made himself nothing," "voided himself" because he did not reckon this condition to be something to selfishly and greedily cling to (harpazo). The context shows what is intended, and the obvious sense of the passage, is that although he existed in the form of God prior to his incarnation, he did not exist in the form of God after the incarnation, but existed rather in the form of human flesh as a man. The Scripture nowhere indicates that Jesus "added" or "assumed" a human nature to a divine nature.
Colossians 1:15Misinterpretation. Trinitarians often see the phrase "image of the invisible God" as a reference to the deity of Christ. However, they also forget that Adam was created in God's image and he was not God, not to mention that we too will bear the image of Christ when we rise from the dead (1 Cor 15:45,49; 1 Jn 3:2).
Colossians 2:9Misinterpretation/Mistranslation. Although the context demands otherwise, Trinitarians often falsely assume Paul is here referring to the incarnate Christ. At Colossians 1:19 he says the same thing in referring to the fullness of God being pleased to dwell in the "firstborn of the dead." At Colossians 2:8-15, Paul explains that the Christians also have this same fullness (2:10) because they have died and rose again with Christ, albeit, Christ has that fullness bodily and the Christian does not. Paul is referring to the deified body of the risen Christ. Also the Greek word does not mean "Godhead" but simply "Deity."
1 Timothy 3:16Misrepresentation. Comparisons of manuscripts, some which contain the word "God" and some which do not, reveal that this passage is now know to be either a scribal error or a forgery. Scribes often used a contracted form of the Greek word for "God", qeoV (theos), that took the form qV. Now the Greek word for "which" is the word hos which is written in Greek alphabet as oV. Now notice the similarity between these two words and also remember they were written by hand. With the exception of one penstroke they are nearly identical. It would be very easy to make a mistake here when copying from one manuscript to another and if that is what happened then that would be excusable. But it would also be very easy for an overzealous scribe to even make a forgery here by changing the manuscript and the handwritten O into a Q with a simple stroke of a pen. And it would be far more difficult to do it the other way around without getting caught (removing the stroke). The passage should read, "great is the mystery of godliness which was manifested in flesh."
Titus 2:13Mistranslatation. This passage is often either mistranslated (KJV) or misinterpreted by Trinitarians with a falsely approached appeal to the Granville Sharp rule. The Greek literally says, "awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ." If the Granville Sharp rule is appropriately followed then what is appearing is not "the great God" and "Savior of us" in reference to Jesus Christ but "the glory of the great God" and "Savior of us" in reference to Jesus Christ. See also Matthew 16:27 where we are taught that Jesus will come in the glory of his Father.
Hebrews 1:3Misinterpretation. Trinitarians falsely assume that if Jesus has the express image, character, of the substance of God then he therefore "is" God. However, this is a false premise and the overwhelming force of the context indicates the writer is intending to show Jesus is greater than the angels being the Son over God's heavenly household having inherited the whole estate whereas the angels themselves are but ministering servant-sons. The risen Jesus has the express image of God because he is clothed in Spirit in his resurrection glory, the nature of God, and the Bible even declares we will too in our resurrection and neither will we be "God."
Hebrews 1:6Misinterpretation/Mistranslation. Trinitarians make two false assumptions here. They falsely assume that the word "world" means "this geographical place" which it does not. The word here is not the normal Greek word for "world," kosmos, but oikoumene which means something like "habitable community" from oikos and is the word from which we get our word "economy." The oikoumene in question here is obviously not "this earth," but the household of heaven into which Jesus has risen and ascended as can be seen by the immediate context and at Hebrews 2:5; 3:1-7. They also falsely presume that since the angels are to worship the risen Christ then he must be "God" since only God is to be worshiped based on a faulty interpretation of Matthew 4, which by the way, is Jesus telling us that only his Father Yahweh is to be worshiped. This is also totally incorrect. The word here is proskyneo which means to "bow down in subjection to" and it can be easily shown that numerous faithful individuals in the Bible bowed down in subjection to individuals other than God. Compare also Heb 1:5 and Acts 13:30-33 and Rom 1:3-5 for context.
Hebrews 1:8Mistranslatation. The Greek literally says word for word, "the throne of you the God to the age of the age." The overwhelming force of the immediate context, the preceding context, the following context, and the context and message of the entire book of Hebrews, demands that the writer means here that Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the throne of God and his reign never ends. The correct translation is to say "God is your throne" which means that the glory of God himself in the risen Jesus is his power of authority.
1 John 5:7Misrepresentation. This verse does not appear in modern translations because it is now known to be a certain forgery. Even if it were not a forgery it still would not support Trinitarian dogma. It simply says that the Father and the Word and the Spirit bear witness/testimony and these three are one. Jesus and the Father also are said to be one in this manner and so are the Father and Jesus and his disciples (14:20; 17:23; Acts 1:8).
1 John 5:20Misinterpretation/Misleading Translation. The word "This" in the sentence "this is the true God" is not referring back to Jesus Christ but is referring back to "him who is true" and concerning that person, we believers are said to be in "his" Son, clearly demonstrating that "him who is true" is not Jesus Christ but the Father.

HOME
Trinity: Quick Reference
Scripture Quick Reference

Verse
Remarks
Genesis 1:26 Misinterpretation. This verse does not indicate the numerical value of the plural group "us." Trinitarians imagine their preconceived three person God into the passage. God belongs to the group "us" but it is not necessarily true all beings in the group "us" are God who is speaking on behalf of the group. The immediate context, Genesis 3:22, the overall teaching of Scripture, and what the Jews believed about this passage, show us that it refers to God and his royal court of angels. Angels who are spirits, just as God is spirit, were often simply called "men" in Scripture and appeared as men, and in this likeness and image man was created.
ERROR:
Eisegesis - imagining an external preconceived notion into the text.
Genesis 18:1-33Misinterpretation. These three men were angels, which are often simply called "men" in the Scriptures, and were not three persons of a Triune God. Jesus and John and Paul taught that no one has seen God or can see God. You simply cannot have the Father and the Holy Spirit walking around with Abraham and then have Jesus teach that no one has ever seen God or you make Jesus out to be a liar. The Angel of the Lord is often described as God himself because his speaking on behalf of God but no one would say God was an angel.
Isaiah 9:6Misinterpretation/Mistranslation. The Hebrew word el which is often translated as "God" does not precisely mean the same thing as the English word "God" but is a less restrictive word with a wider scope of meaning and is a Hebrew way of referring to God as "The Power" or "The Mighty One" and this word is used of God, angels, men, and even inanimate objects where it is translated as "mighty" or "power." Although it is acceptable to translate el as "God" in most cases, this is because that word is referring to God, not because it means the same thing as the English word "God." The words el gibbor, often translated as "mighty God," both connotate the idea of "power" or "strength" or "mightiness" and really mean something similar to the English words "Mighty Power" or "Powerful Mighty One" or "Mighty Warrior." The Hebrew word el is an descriptive appellation for God in Hebrew, in the same sense we use the English expression "the almighty" which by itself does not mean "God," but is a way of referring to God in English. Let the reader understand that the author is not saying el means "the Almighty" but is using an analogy for the sake of understanding. In fact, El was the appellation also given to the Canaanite mightiest god. Also, to claim "Jesus is the Father" is anti-Trinitarian Sabellianism but some Trinitarians do not realize that fact.

Matthew 1:23Misinterpretation. The immediate context shows that the name "God with us" is meant to convey the idea that God was with Israel in the plan and purpose of salvation, not with Israel in geographical location, sending Jesus whose name means "salvation" to "save them from their sins." In this way, the Jews could say "God is with us" in plan and purpose. The word Immanuel is also used in Isaiah chapter 8 where we can also see that it was intended in that same manner.
Matthew 2:2,11Misinterpretation. The passage says that the Magi came to bow down before (proskyneo) the King of the Jews. It is ridiculous to say these men were coming to worship Jesus thinking he was God as if they were Trinitarians or something.
Mark 2:7Misinterpretation. The context and parallel account at Matthew 9:1-8 show us that the very point of this account is to show that God had given authority to men and Matthew tells us this explicitly. Trinitarians make the very same mistake as the Pharisees in order to promote their traditions.
John 1:1Mistranslatation. Trinitarian scholars themselves agree that the second occurrence of the Greek word theos at John 1:1 does not refer to "who" Jesus is but "what" Jesus was. However, the captital "G" in the second instance of theos is extremely misleading because it invites the English reader to assume John is telling us "who" the Word was. It should be translated as "and the Word was god" where it is understood that this is the same saying "and the Word was deity."
John 1:18Misrepresentation. Trinitarian Greek scholars agree that comparisons of existing manuscripts, some which contain the word "God" and some which do not, reveal that those manuscripts which refer to Jesus as "God" are forgeries and this was not what John originally wrote.
John 5:18Misinterpretation. God is indentified here as the Father of Jesus and Jesus is identified as the Son of God. The Jews were upset because Jesus in claiming to be God's own son was thereby also claiming to have a divine origin in God the Father making himself the same as God. The Greek word here often translated as "equality" means "same as." The Word that was diety then became flesh but was still that same Word that was begotten out of God at creation and as such the purpose of that Word was, is, and always will be, divine. Jesus was not claiming to be "God" but the Son of God his Father and in so doing claiming his origins to be in God and as such the Jews were angered that he claimed to be God's son. They eventually charged him not with claiming to be "God" but with claiming to be "son of God" (19:7).
John 8:58Misinterpretation. The blind man in the very next chapter (9:9) also simply said, "I AM" (many translations add words that are not there in the Greek). Yet the Trinitarian does not consistently claim this man was claiming to be God. Moreover, the name "I AM" (YHWH) comes from Exodus 3:14 where it is the angel of Yahweh who said "I AM" and the Trinitarian does not consitently claim the angel was claiming to be God either. Jesus goes to much length in John to explain to us words are not his own but his Father's how sent him. In fact, he even says to the Father when he is praying, "I have made known your name (17:26). Just as the angel of Yahweh was the agent and voice of God on Mount Sinai, so also Jesus is the Word of God and was his voice to the people of Israel.
John 10:30Misinterpretation. Jesus indicates right here in the context of this passage that the way he is one with the Father is in plan and purpose in the works that he did. Also see John 3:2; 14:8-11; Matt 12:28; Acts 2:22; 10:36,38. Being the Word of God the Word of God has the divine purpose of God. Indeed the church and the Father and Jesus are one (Jn 14:20; 17:23) and we would not conclude the church is therefore "God."
John 14:9Misinterpretation. Jesus explains repeatedly that no one has seen God the Father in substance and to claim that to see Jesus in substance is to see the Father in substance is ridiculous. Jesus tells us repeatedly in the Gospel of John that the Father was seen in what Jesus did, not in what he was in substance. John tells us that God is even seen in us when we love one another (1 John 4:12). Jesus is talking about function and purpose here, not substance of nature.
John 20:28Misinterpretation. A close examination of the teachings of Jesus in John's gospel quickly reveals that Thomas was affirming what Jesus had taught the disciples all along, that he and the Father were one and to see him was to see the Father. Jesus had taught them "I and the Father are one" where he also at length explained that they were one in plan and purpose (see 14:10). Now, being glorified, Jesus was now also one with God the Father in bodily substance, his Spirit and Jesus' flesh having become one (see 1 Cor 15:45) and Thomas is affirming that Jesus and the Father are one and that to see him is to see the Father which is also why Jesus then goes on to say that blessed are those who do not see but believe.
Acts 20:28Misinterpretation/Mistranslation. This passage has two problems associated with it. First there are manuscripts which do not say "church of God" but say "church of the Lord." Irenaeus who wrote about 185 A.D. quotes the passage as "church of the Lord." Secondly, the phrase actually reads, "which he purchased through the blood of his own" and it was very common in Koine Greek to imply an unmentioned noun here and this is revealed in the New Testament with several examples right in this same book of Acts. If "church of God" is taken to be correct, and that alone is highly debatable, the text likely means "blood of his own Son" See RSV and ASV.
Romans 9:5Mistranslatation. The structure of the Greek grammar used by Paul at Romans 9:5 allows for three translation possibilities. The vocabulary, style and thought in Paul's other letters demand that it be translated as "Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed forever. Amen." or "Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen." See RSV and NAB.
Philip 2:5-7Misinterpretation. The passage does not say that Jesus was God, but was in the form "of" God, which of course is true since he was begotten of God. The text also says he "emptied" himself or "made himself nothing," "voided himself" because he did not reckon this condition to be something to selfishly and greedily cling to (harpazo). The context shows what is intended, and the obvious sense of the passage, is that although he existed in the form of God prior to his incarnation, he did not exist in the form of God after the incarnation, but existed rather in the form of human flesh as a man. The Scripture nowhere indicates that Jesus "added" or "assumed" a human nature to a divine nature.
Colossians 1:15Misinterpretation. Trinitarians often see the phrase "image of the invisible God" as a reference to the deity of Christ. However, they also forget that Adam was created in God's image and he was not God, not to mention that we too will bear the image of Christ when we rise from the dead (1 Cor 15:45,49; 1 Jn 3:2).
Colossians 2:9Misinterpretation/Mistranslation. Although the context demands otherwise, Trinitarians often falsely assume Paul is here referring to the incarnate Christ. At Colossians 1:19 he says the same thing in referring to the fullness of God being pleased to dwell in the "firstborn of the dead." At Colossians 2:8-15, Paul explains that the Christians also have this same fullness (2:10) because they have died and rose again with Christ, albeit, Christ has that fullness bodily and the Christian does not. Paul is referring to the deified body of the risen Christ. Also the Greek word does not mean "Godhead" but simply "Deity."
1 Timothy 3:16Misrepresentation. Comparisons of manuscripts, some which contain the word "God" and some which do not, reveal that this passage is now know to be either a scribal error or a forgery. Scribes often used a contracted form of the Greek word for "God", qeoV (theos), that took the form qV. Now the Greek word for "which" is the word hos which is written in Greek alphabet as oV. Now notice the similarity between these two words and also remember they were written by hand. With the exception of one penstroke they are nearly identical. It would be very easy to make a mistake here when copying from one manuscript to another and if that is what happened then that would be excusable. But it would also be very easy for an overzealous scribe to even make a forgery here by changing the manuscript and the handwritten O into a Q with a simple stroke of a pen. And it would be far more difficult to do it the other way around without getting caught (removing the stroke). The passage should read, "great is the mystery of godliness which was manifested in flesh."
Titus 2:13Mistranslatation. This passage is often either mistranslated (KJV) or misinterpreted by Trinitarians with a falsely approached appeal to the Granville Sharp rule. The Greek literally says, "awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ." If the Granville Sharp rule is appropriately followed then what is appearing is not "the great God" and "Savior of us" in reference to Jesus Christ but "the glory of the great God" and "Savior of us" in reference to Jesus Christ. See also Matthew 16:27 where we are taught that Jesus will come in the glory of his Father.
Hebrews 1:3Misinterpretation. Trinitarians falsely assume that if Jesus has the express image, character, of the substance of God then he therefore "is" God. However, this is a false premise and the overwhelming force of the context indicates the writer is intending to show Jesus is greater than the angels being the Son over God's heavenly household having inherited the whole estate whereas the angels themselves are but ministering servant-sons. The risen Jesus has the express image of God because he is clothed in Spirit in his resurrection glory, the nature of God, and the Bible even declares we will too in our resurrection and neither will we be "God."
Hebrews 1:6Misinterpretation/Mistranslation. Trinitarians make two false assumptions here. They falsely assume that the word "world" means "this geographical place" which it does not. The word here is not the normal Greek word for "world," kosmos, but oikoumene which means something like "habitable community" from oikos and is the word from which we get our word "economy." The oikoumene in question here is obviously not "this earth," but the household of heaven into which Jesus has risen and ascended as can be seen by the immediate context and at Hebrews 2:5; 3:1-7. They also falsely presume that since the angels are to worship the risen Christ then he must be "God" since only God is to be worshiped based on a faulty interpretation of Matthew 4, which by the way, is Jesus telling us that only his Father Yahweh is to be worshiped. This is also totally incorrect. The word here is proskyneo which means to "bow down in subjection to" and it can be easily shown that numerous faithful individuals in the Bible bowed down in subjection to individuals other than God. Compare also Heb 1:5 and Acts 13:30-33 and Rom 1:3-5 for context.
Hebrews 1:8Mistranslatation. The Greek literally says word for word, "the throne of you the God to the age of the age." The overwhelming force of the immediate context, the preceding context, the following context, and the context and message of the entire book of Hebrews, demands that the writer means here that Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the throne of God and his reign never ends. The correct translation is to say "God is your throne" which means that the glory of God himself in the risen Jesus is his power of authority.
1 John 5:7Misrepresentation. This verse does not appear in modern translations because it is now known to be a certain forgery. Even if it were not a forgery it still would not support Trinitarian dogma. It simply says that the Father and the Word and the Spirit bear witness/testimony and these three are one. Jesus and the Father also are said to be one in this manner and so are the Father and Jesus and his disciples (14:20; 17:23; Acts 1:8).
1 John 5:20Misinterpretation/Misleading Translation. The word "This" in the sentence "this is the true God" is not referring back to Jesus Christ but is referring back to "him who is true" and concerning that person, we believers are said to be in "his" Son, clearly demonstrating that "him who is true" is not Jesus Christ but the Father.

HOME