How could one be expected to understand an allusion when they don’t have any idea what you think?
If this is your explanation, it is woefully inadequate. The word/Jesus is said to have performed deeds that no human could in John 1. Your proposed “ye are gods” explanation does not account for the information given there at all where he is involved in creation and exists prior to his incarnation as no other human. Your position has you bizarrely affirming that Jesus is divine while simultaneously denying that he is God. This latter mistake arising because you mistakenly believe that “God” can only refer to “the Father” seemingly because of your foundational assumption that God can not exist as a human. In a vain attempt to avoid your errors on these matters, you’ve attempted to shoehorn a legitimate “agent of God” definition into the context of John 1 where it clearly does not fit. The translation “God” fits the context of John 1 and is clearly what is meant.
Also, you have still given no plausible distinction between “deity” and “God”. I pointed out the flaws in your definitions in earlier posts which you entirely avoided as you most commonly do.
I think that about sums it up. Ball’s in your court.