Well, I THOUGHT I was through................
I HAVE offered alternative understanding. You simply chose to disregard it as NOT being what you believe.
This thread is the first I have seen of any of it; I think the very categorical responses I have offered to your posts show that I would not simply disregard a point you have made and then move on.
The Word IS: THE word of God. It is the manner in which HE: GOD spoke the 'light' into existence IN THE BEGINNING. AFTER 'the beginning, as in SINCE the beginning, we KNOW that Christ was instrumental in 'creation'.
So herein you indicate the Word is Christ, based on your nominal reference to John 1:1 and John 1:3.
God's Word as in God's Spirit IS God.
And here you unwittingly confuse our Lord with the Spirit in an attempt to characterize his relationship woth the Godhead.
And here, after just quoting John 1:1, you misuse a true statement in an exclusionary manner which rejects "and the Word was God."
God is OUR God and THE God of Jesus Christ as well.
Is the Word God, or merely a God as the false New World Translation claims?
How would YOU discern the meaning behind GOD, not THE FATHER, being THE God of Christ as well as OUR God? Not Christ BEING God, but Christ HAVING the SAME God as OURSELVES?
How I discern this is immaterial to the question of how you interpret, and indeed presume to suggest we interpret, John 1:1-14.
You see, it's not from my LACK of offering an explanation of my beliefs, it's merely a matter of you rejecting them. Maybe you missed the posts where I PLAINLY stated that it is MY belief that when God said, "Let there be LIGHT". This was the instant that Christ was 'begotten'. For I do NOT believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist as ONE God. I believe that there is ONLY ONE true God and that is the Father of Jesus Christ: His SON.
You are welcome to believe that, but you have not reconciled that position with John 1:1 "and the Word was God."
I don't NEED to define Godhead any further than what is offered in scripture. In FACT, it is my understanding that we have been instructed NOT to even THINK about Godhead in our OWN terms. Nor are we to construct images or likenesses of it. But ONLY to accept that it exists as offered.
Accepting it as offered requires acceding to the ontological and essential divinity of our Lord as God, as per John 1:1.
And indeed the Holy Spirit, as per Matthew 28:19, is also God.
And in all instances of TRUE understanding, according to EVERY OFFERING in the entire Bible, A Father BEGETS a Son. That means that a son comes FROM a Father.
This is true. And there is a world of difference between the act of begetting, and the act of creation, Our Lord is begotten, not made; he is not a creature.
They are not equal nor are they co eternal. Can't be if one comes FROM another.
More fallacious anthropomorphology.
Only in 'trinity' do we see men creating their OWN definitions for words in an attempt to alter the obvious.
Once again you continue this canard, in willful rejection of John 1:1-14, and using the perjorative language
@Albion amd myself asked you to refrain from using.
We would NEVER have been offered the terms 'father' or 'son' if they had NO meaning according to the very definitions of the words.
I agree. There is no sense in which a som begotten of his father can be a creature of his father. This represents still another strawman attack against Trinitarians; once again, you would rather argue against what we do not believe, rather than what we do believe.
God is not a prankster offering RIDDLES for us to explore. If He has been revealed, it is not through such means.
Such means as what? John 1:1-14? I think the very idea that Trinitarians believe in, or would believe in, a prankster deity, is offensive.
And if He has TRULY been revealed, He cannot REMAIN a mystery to those whom He has revealed Himself. Christ's ULTIMATE desire is that WE should ONE with God as HE is one with GOD. That is impossible if He remains a MYSTERY.
Hence the Incarnation of the Word.
As Paul offered when he encountered the temple dedicated to the UNKNOWN God. "I feel that you people are TOO superstitious. Let me introduce you to the God that CAN be KNOWN".
By which he of course meant God incarnate: our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, who is knowable according to his person owing to His incarnation.
In summary, in this post you have not offered an alternate explanation of John 1:1-14, nor anything close to the standard of a literal exegesis I have repeatedly insisted on. Rather, you responded solely to the first two parts of John 1:1, contradicted yourself on John 1:1-14, and basically ignored John 1:2 and John 1:4-13.
You then proceded with your customary selection of fallacious red herrings, strawmen, special pleading and appeals to ignorance, in order to camoflauge the entirely partial and insubstantial non-literal exegesis offered.
What is more, you have not withdrawn the exceedingly unpleasant comments made in your previous post about Trinitarian Christians.