Posts by Hairdog1937

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

aa:

Well, it looks like we are now beginning to progress down the road of understanding. I appreciate your responses. You are an honest man. Thank you.

You said:

“okay? so yes, john 1:1 gives evidence that jesus is a deity, we are in full agreement!!” and:

“you were saying that the verst supports the deity of jesus christ, and i am saying you are 100% correct with my last post.”

Then you said: “ill post a dictionary definition (notice i didnt say the definition, as you have pointed out before there are usually several) of "deity", just so were clear on this understanding or "agreement". deity n : any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

aa, notice what Webster has to say about the definition of the word, “deity:”

a. the rank or essential nature of a god. b. GOD: 1. SUPREME BEING. 2. a god or goddess. 3. one exalted or revered as sdupremely good or powerful.

Notice that there is more to the definition of “deity” than just one. In order to determine which one applies in a given setting, we must examine the context of that setting. When we do, the first thing we come across is the second phrase of John 1:1: “the Word was with God.” The Greek usage points out that this phrase (“pros ton theon”) means, “the Word was face-to-face with God.” The meaning of this Greek phrase is that the Word existed on a plane of equality with God.

The next phrase directs us towards the applicable meaning of “deity,” for it says that “the Word was God.” This phrase also provides amplification of and clarification for the preceding phrase, “pros ton theon.” He was face to face with God – on an equal plane – because He was God.

At this point, I am not saying that this verse refers to the Trinity, but it does seem to provide us with information regarding the identity and essence of the Word.

Your comments, please.

Hairdog

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

Hey, Two:

You have taken your opinion, that the Spirit is the Father and the Son, and then tried to make the Bible fit your doctrine of the "twinity." Naah, won't work. The Spirit is the third Person of the Godhead. He can be lied to, sinned against, grieved, etc. I'm sure you've heard it all before. Yes He is the Spirit of Christ. Yes He is the Spirit of God (BTW, have you ever found any place in the Bible where He's called the Spirit of the Father?), but so is Jesus referred to as the Son of - guess who? - God. And God is referred to as the Father. C'mon, dude, gimme a break.

Treis

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

Two:

Have you considered Matt.12:31? “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”

Or Acts 5:3? “…Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…?”

Or Ephesians 4:30? “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God…”

Or 1 Thessalonians 5:19? “Do not quench the Spirit.”

Three

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

aa:

You completely misunderstand me. When you went to grade school, you didn’t learn how to multiply until you first knew what a number was, how to add, and how to subtract. Then you memorized “times-tables.” The same is true with understanding Scripture. Establishing the meaning of a single phrase in a verse, then the next, and the next, and so on, is foundational to understanding the verse. Once it is understood, you move on to the next verse and do the same thing there. After examining several verses, one can see the formation, or discounting, of a teaching. This is systematic hermeneutics. I didn’t invent it, but I learned it when I took Principles of Interpretation in college. Mr. aa, it works! And it can be applied to any literary work, too. Believe me, it’s a valuable tool and method. So, take it or leave it. It’s up to you. If you don’t like this method, then, as you say, I guess we’re done communicating.

Your disagreement with my comments on cross-referencing (“Cross-referencing is a dead-end when agreement on a verse [as discussed in point 1] has not been achieved”) fails to comprehend the point I was trying to get across, namely, that if there is disagreement on the meaning of one verse, agreement on other verses will never be achieved. So there is no profit in cross-referencing under these circumstances. I am not completely against cross-referencing; I’m just not in favor of starting off with it. One verse at a time. Once agreement on a verse is realized, we can cross-reference it with another. And once again, I am not saying that a verse, totally by itself, can establish any doctrine. One should not become dogmatic nor adamant over a position based upon one verse (although some people do take that position). I won’t and I don’t.

So, there you have it. I must go by established hermeneutical principles and the application thereof. I cannot follow any other procedure. When followed, you will see that it leads to objective Bible study – something I think we both desire. After all, does not our eternal destiny depend upon the right understanding and application of Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit? I know you believe that, too.

God’s Blessings,
Hairdog

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

aa:

You said: “…speaking of 0% pertaining to john 1:1, geez, thats almost all of our posts now, isnt it? this is common when discussing the trinity with a trinitarian. (okay, i know were only discussing the deity of the word right now, you dont have to correct me again. but come on, its all about the trinity, isnt it? otherwise it wouldnt be on this particular thread). what i mean to say is, 9 times out of 10, when debating these matters, the trinitarians will veer off the subject, and concentrate more on pointless "side debates" if you will; its perfectly normal, and i expect it.”

Here are a few comments that refer to your above, quoted statement. In order to discuss the subject of the thread started by Mark, the trinity, I approached it in a manner that I have found to be profitable when objectively examining Scripture. This is referred to as “exegesis” (I know that you remember that word). If one approaches several passages at one time, it becomes less systematic and more cumbersome. I find that, for my simple mind, one verse at a time works well.

Now some of what I am saying may be repetitious, but I say it again for clarification. As I examine a particular subject one verse at a time, I see what information the verse lends to the matter under discussion. If you prefer, I will be more than happy to classify this discovery as “information” rather than evidence. It seems that such discussion over “evidence” and “proof” has distracted from the subject at hand, so I will thus proceed if you so desire.

For additional clarification, it is my position that John 1:1 in no way establishes or proves the doctrine of the trinity. For me, it simply supplies “information” that is pertinent to the subject of whether or not the trinity is a Biblical teaching. It is a starting point.

You said: “i do commend you on your very first use of cross-referencing other scriptures this time though. let me just say, ITS ABOUT TIME. i know its not usually "the way you do things", and youd rather try and convince someone the meaning of ONE scripture before looking at any others, but maybe youre starting to see the importance of cross-referencing.”

It is not my intent, nor do I possess the ability, to “convince” anyone about a spiritual matter. That is God’s job. And yes, cross-referencing is important, but here are two important points regarding it:

1. Cross referencing serves a valid purpose once the first passage has been examined and both parties agree to its content/interpretation. If not, then:

2. Cross-referencing is a dead-end when agreement on a verse (as discussed in point 1) has not been achieved, for one will be attempting to disprove one verse with the other(s). The reason for the attempt to disprove comes from one party maintaining that a single, examined verse establishes the doctrinal teaching (or issue at hand). Why is this so? Because he is operating from a false premise and attempting to influence or convince the other that his premise is truth. There may be other factors that point out the premature application of cross-referencing.

In your 2nd post of the day, you said:

“ well, it didnt take me long to look up and laugh at the joke of a notion you proposed, namely that these scriptures you cited supposedly make it "clear" that before "the beginning" only god existed. ill quote you first before showing the fallacies in your argument.....”

Because of what I’ve stated above regarding the use of cross-referencing, I violated my own rules. I prematurely used it. I was wrong in doing so. Therefore, I apologize for the use of that tactic. Nevertheless, your comments on the cross-referenced passages are worthy of subsequent consideration – but not by me at this time (although I am quite tempted to do so). The “information” from John 1:1 must be first agreed to. Then I (we) could move on.

quote: Second (and finally), before the beginning (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1), only God existed. This is clear from John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16.

Then you said: “-are you serious hairy? lets break down each scripture one at a time…”

Gee, you sound like me. So, Mr. aa, “let’s break down each Scripture one at a time…” Let’s begin with John 1:1.

Review what the verse says, remembering that what it “says” must first be determined by knowing the language: both English and koine. If either one of us fails to do so, we are refuting both languages and the grammar which interprets them correctly. Then we would be falling into the eisegetical trap. I can’t change the meaning of words to suit my opinion.

Finally (and rather repetitiously), here is what the verse says:

1. “In the beginning was the Word:” the Word continually was.

2. “The Word was with God:” the Word was continually face-to-face with God.

3. “The Word was God:” the Word continually was God.

Each of these points can be more specifically and grammatically dissected. I would suggest that we not do so all at once, but one phrase at a time. The reason is that just as with the exegesis of more than one verse at a time, further examination might be impaired by faulty conclusions – eisegesis.

I know that you are not a Trinitarian and that I am. For the sake of objective examination, I am willing to set aside my belief in the trinity. Are you willing to set aside your belief in the contrary? Should we not examine the Scriptures, carefully, to see whether this matter is so, or to be disregarded?

This is my suggestion. The choice to do so is yours. If you can’t agree, then further discussion with each other would not be profitable for either of us.

Hairdog

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

Dear, dear Mr. aa:

You said:

“…i think weve all figured out that constant definitions of exegete, exegesis, eisegesis, etc, etc, are going to be expected in all of your posts. which we all enjoy, it really hammers home frenchy points about the way trinitarians dwell on grammar instead of reasoning.”

Well, by golly aa, I think you are right. It seems to be rather important that for us to successfully communicate with one another, we must first define words that we use. And one of the best places to look for these definitions is in our English and Greek dictionaries, eh? But of course if you have another word source, please let me know what it is so that we can both be operating from the same authoritative source. Does that sound (pardon the pun) reasonable? While I await your response, I shall continue to turn to my favorite secular source, the dictionary published for the English language by Webster and various Greek lexicons, O.K? Therefore, notice the following definitions:

Reasoning: the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason.

Reason (v.): To use reason to influence one’s opinions.

Reason (n): a rational ground or motive; a sufficient ground of explanation (sufficient to whom?) or of logical defense.

First, let me say that the REASON I am defining “reason” as above is because that’s what is listed in Webster’s. It’s not my definition; it’s his. And because he is a credible authority, I use him. But if you can give me a good “reason” to look elsewhere, I’ll listen to what you have to say. After all, I’m sure you would have a good “reason” to select something else besides an English dictionary, eh?

Secondly, when two people wish to debate an issue, and use “reason” as the debating tool, unless they use the same authoritative source as the grounds for their “reasoning,” they will not be able to agree upon whatever it is that they are trying to debate (in order to come to an agreement). In the issue you and I are debating, we are working towards understanding what light, if any, John 1:1 sheds on the deity of the Word. Since we are trying to arrive at a decision over the meaning of words, the authoritative source would seem to be language. Since the original language of the subject verse is koine Greek, IT is the authoritative source. It cannot be anything else since anything else would be to say, “I don’t care what the meaning of the words are. I know what I know, and what I know has greater “reasoning” power than the meaning of the words.” That is not a very “rational” (a.k.a. “reasonable”) attitude, is it? Certainly it will not allow for objective understanding. It is, logically (and Scriptural as well), foolishness.

You said many things to which I am tempted to respond. I don’t normally do this because I think one issue at a time is the best systematic way to approach an issue. Nevertheless, let me at least respond to a couple of things: first, the definitions you gave for “evidence” and “proof.” Let me quote your definitions:

“evidence (v):To render evident or clear; to PROVE

evidence (n):that which furnishes, or tends to furnish PROOF;
any mode of PROOF”

Please observe (as I’m fairly certain you already did) that there is more than one meaning to the word, “evidence.” It can mean “to prove” and it can also mean “that which…'TENDS' to furnish proof.” When I use the two words, I am applying the latter definition to “evidence” in order to distinguish it from “proof.” I hope that you now understand where I am coming from. Sometimes – no – many times we humans fail to properly communicate with one another, thereby creating great difficulties. May this comment serve to clarify what I meant.

Second (and finally), before the beginning (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1), only God existed. This is clear from John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16. Therefore, the angels, Michael and satan included, were created “in the beginning.” WHEN in the beginning? I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t say.

In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being. Based upon the definitions of “evidence,” you should be able to (finally) see that this is not a humorous statement; it’s reasoning based upon the Bible.

Hairdog

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

Dear Mr. aa:

You said: “-um, come on hairdog, who do you think youre kidding with these constant references to "preconceived opinions"? for one thing, frenchy didnt directly address YOU in the first place, so how do you know frenchy was speaking of YOUR insight of john 1:1?”

Me: By golly, Mr. aa, I think you got me there. Silly old (very old, by the way) me. I just naturally assumed that, since it was indicated as a reply to my post that it was directed towards me. Man, do I owe you an apology. Sure am sorry ‘bout that. Oh, by the way. A synonym for “preconceived opinion” is eisegesis (and, by the way, it’s in the dictionary).

Then you said: “…(which just for a side note, a quick check in "one of your favorite secular writings", websters dictionary, will show you that the word "exegete" is only used in noun form, not verb; you could not have "exegeted" anything, as "exegeted" is not even a word. funny that a man who loves to throw around his vast knowledge of diction like yourself wasnt already aware of this).”

Me: Ah, yes, Mr. aa, “exegete” in English sure enough is a noun. Gosh, I fell into my old habit of using a Greek verb to express myself. Once again, I made a boo-boo. Please forgive me. By the way, did you know that English has no word of its own for “exegesis,” or “exegete;” that instead these words are transliterations? So we illiterate people had to borrow a word from the Greeks. We did the same thing with “baptize,” too, since we didn’t have that word in our English language, either. We are such a bunch of linguistic lackeys!

My “English” verb (of which the infinitive is “to exegete”) comes from the Greek word, “exeigeomai.” You may wish to look up its multiple meanings in your Greek lexicon. It has many meanings, of which two are to “expound, or “interpret.”

Then you said: “and lets assume frenchy was speaking of you, which since frenchy is speaking on the topic of greek grammar in this discussion, (a topic you added), i think its a safe bet. wouldnt it be a perfectly normal assumption, (not a preconceived opinion), that your discussion of john 1:1, even though not specifically addressing the trinity, is relating to the trinity? considering the fact that your very first post was in reply to everyone else on this thread, which was started by bibleboy SPECIFICALLY speaking of the trinity, i think this was a very safe assumption on frenchys part, as well as the rest of the posters on this thread. yet you continue to hide behind technicalities such as whether or not you specifically mentioned the trinity doctrine, in order to discount everyone elses viewpoints/arguments on the matter. (and im sure if you really try hard, you can break down this very post grammatically and technically, therefore proving it in your mind unworthy of notice).”

Me: Wow! Was I really that unclear? Time for another apology, I guess. Color it “extended” if you will, please. Let me clarify for you exactly what I meant. I wish to point out that no doctrine can be totally established on just one verse from Scripture. Evidence can be provided, but that should be the limit (see the definitions of theses two “high-tech” words below). Therefore, I was attempting to convey that John 1:1 does not establish any doctrine of the trinity or anything else. It simply is my starting point for manifesting evidence. This verse provides evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ. As a result, it MAY also provide evidence for the trinity. BY ITSELF, however, John 1:1 proves no doctrine. I hope that this makes it perfectly clear what I meant. If not, please let me know so that I might further assist you in your apparent bafflement.

In your p.s., you said: “im sure i speak for all of us when i say that we love the conclusive way you end all your posts, avoiding any doubt in our minds that youve achieved complete perfection in your proofs/evidences. example: ‘I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being.’”

Me: When I use the word, “proof,” I mean that there is a cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. John 1:1 does not provide proof for the doctrine of the trinity. “Evidence” means something that provides testimony that aids in ascertaining the truth of a matter. It is a “beginning;” not completely conclusive. John 1:1 gives me evidence.

I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being.

Hairdog

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

aa:

Here's a simple reply to your posts where you think that I contradicted myself:

John 1:1 gives great evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ. It is not "proof."

The whole Bible gives "proof" for the deity of Jesus Christ.

He who has ears to hear will hear; he who doesn't, won't.

Jesus is Jehovah God.

Hope this is simple enough for you,

Hairdog

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

Well, for this letter quoted below, the bigger mystery is who wrote it? Of course there are advantages to being anonymous………….

He/she said: “...Ever notice how every trinity debate turns into a grammar debate? It appears that the trinity is based on Greek grammar alone and somehow when translated the mystery disappears and must be resurrected in Greek grammatical rules.”

Me: Generally speaking, one must have an understanding of grammar when reading something. It kind of goes along with the task - - reading, that is. And generally, when one is reading something that is a translation, he can be further aided in comprehension if he knows the grammar of the original language. Doesn’t seem to make much difference what one is reading. But if one does not possess the skills connected with another language, he can still arrive at understanding through the application of good, interpretive skills – unless, of course, it contradicts his preconceived opinions, or faulty teaching. The response of - - whoever wrote the above quoted article – clearly indicates that the last two are active forces in his (forgive me if it was a woman who wrote this, remembering the contemporary “need” for political correctness)
scholarly life, for I have made no mention of any doctrine of the trinity as I exegeted John 1:1.

This morning, as I was reading in one of my favorite secular writings, Webster’s Dictionary, I thought that I might take a look at the word, “was.” It seems that “was” is indicated to be the English “past indicative” of the verb, “to be.” In layman’s language, it refers to the existence of someone, or -thing. The past indicative is used in the English translation of John 1:1, while in the Greek, the imperfect indicative is used. In both languages, the mood of the verb is identified as the “indicative.” This is the mood of certainty. So the action or state described by the particular indicative mood verb is one of certainty; in the case of the verb, “was,” it is certain that (in the case here in John 1:1), the Word’s state was one of being. The Greek language has several “past” tenses. The imperfect tense indicates durative action in the past. Therefore, the state of the Word is not only certain, but it is certain that He “continually” was; that He continually existed.

There are different words that could be used in both languages to indicate other types, or states, of existence of the Word in John 1:1. If the Word had been created, yet existed before God created everything else (a ridiculous and logically absurd proposition; nevertheless a subject for future discussion), God, through John the apostle, could have said, “In the beginning, the Word had already been created,” or something similar; but that’s not what it says. It says that in the beginning, the Word already was in existence. Now, if this is all that this verse said, it would not indicate whether the Word had been created, or was an eternal being -- but there is more; and these other statements I have already covered in a previous post. Then………….

He/she said: “Of course there is no end to the disagreement among 'scholars' as to what that Greek actually means. Everyone who has ever had a semester in Greek suddenly jumps up and begins spouting off the rules. It would appear that Greek grammar is almost as difficult to define as the mystery of the trinity it is purported to advocate.”

Me: A couple of Mr. Anonymous’ points are discussed:

1. “Of course there is no end to the disagreement among ‘scholars’ as to what that Greek actually means.”

a. Yes, there is disagreement among scholars, but it is no 50-50 division. Through etymological deduction, one discovers accuracy. The one who claims to be a scholar, yet is proven wrong through etymological evidence, loses credibility.

b. A good example of this is seen in the final phrase of John 1:1, “the Word was God.” Pseudo-scholars insert the indefinite article so that the reading makes the Word into a god but not God. For anyone who has studied Greek, even one such as Mr. Anonymous suggests above –

“…Everyone who has ever had a semester in Greek suddenly jumps up and begins spouting off the rules…”

- he knows the rules pertaining to the Greek article, that the indefinite article does not even exist in the Greek, and the rules of the predicate nominative (which, by the way, are identical in English).

2. “It would appear that Greek grammar is almost as difficult to define as the mystery of the trinity it is purported to advocate.”

a. This statement lacks any logical sense and is simply the cry of ignorance and the preconceived opinionated individual. It has no merit whatsoever. But let me at least say this. Any grammar is difficult to define if you don’t know it. This should be motivation to learn it – especially if you want to find out whether or not teachings such as the trinity are supported by grammatical evidence.

I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being.

Hairdog

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

Hairdog1937

aa:

You said: “first off, your explanation of the verb 'was', though very interesting, adds just a little less than zero to this discussion. to say jesus 'was' in existance, proves not that he ETERNALLY 'was'. as im sure you know, almost every major bible topic and verse lends itself to multiple interpretations (unless you claim to have a direct line to god with full explanations), so if you want to use this one verse "in the beginning the word was," to absolutely PROVE jesus' eternal existance, i think youre standing on a very weak leg…”

Me: I am glad that my discussion of “was” interested you. However, you misunderstood me. I never intended to say that the verb, “was,” proved the eternal existence of the Word (Jesus). If you took that as what I meant, I apologize. I meant it to simply be a starting point. No single verse should be sufficient “proof” of any doctrine. The use of “was” in this verse simply lends information that points out that anything that existed before the beginning had no beginning. The heavens, earth, animals, angels and satan all are created beings. Therefore, they had a beginning. And since there is only one beginning of the creation, all of these were created “:in the beginning.” Upon initial examination, this verse does not include the Word as being created since He already “was.”

All words have basic meanings. A word doesn’t always have all of its meanings applied wherever it appears. Its context is a big help in determining its meaning. It may even be used figuratively instead of literally. Its usage may be subject to culture, history, etc. Here in John 1:1, we (at least I and many others) find the meaning of “was” to be qualified by, in the first phrase, “in the beginning.” It is contrasted with all that had a beginning. It did not.

Your comments on the word, “begotten,” and John 3:16 have merit, but that is for a future discussion. If one can’t agree with the evidence (not “proof”) presented here in John 1:1, there is no sense in moving on.

aa, if you were to write John 1:1 according to your understanding of the meaning of the first phrase, “in the beginning was the Word,” what word would you choose instead of “was” to make your point more clear?

God’s blessings,
Hairdog