The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[mikesw]

Of course your literal interpretation of John 1:1 is debunked by a literal interpretation of John 17:3. It has never been about Scripture versus Scripture to me, but you make it about that. I think your misunderstandings are foundational. You got your house of cards stacked on John 1:1 and you're attempting to rest the entire Bible on top of it. Just doesn't work. It's contradicted repeatedly.

Your only defense seems to be "Only interpret John 1:1 literally, don't debate the way it is translated, and ridicule any verse or passage that contradicts it." You have a very ridged, inflexible, and Biblically incohesive theology called Logos Theology. It is a secondary theology, never repeated again by anyone else in the Bible, contradicted by John himself in 1 John 1:1-3 and demonstrated to be false by John's disbelief in the deity of Jesus in Acts 4:23-31.

you get confused what you are arguing. You go for the hyperliteralist reading of John 1:1-18. You have to decide whether you are going to argue the hyperliteralist unitarian view with "word" have only meaning per the Unitarian Pocket Dictionary or the allegorical usage as John has done.
You repeat your rejection of John 17:5 due to ending at John 17:3. It would be good if you could change from your mistakes instead of repeating them. My rigidity is to adhere to John rather than runningman views.

Furthermore, your doctrines are relatively new, novel, and gnostic. They were developed over the centuries, changed, and adapted over time as debates were lost. This is why there were no orthodox trinitarians until the 4th century. They didn't have the formalized structure to even explain their doctrines, especially not with Scripture. Your beliefs have only ever been written down as some scribe's opinions on a scroll, but not anything God or the prophets talked about.

Really? You have a doctrine that was held in minority yet being heretical to Arius. You imagine the 4th century as if people did not know of the Triune God until then. That is a mistaken history. The goal was to agree upon the way to perceive how the incarnation as Jesus avoids conflict as if there were two gods. Your ignorance is duly noted but you have a chance to learn some history.
I can only assume your lack of understanding of history is on the same track for your denial of who Christ is.

 

[Peterlag]

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 3:13 - No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
John 3:31 - He who comes from above is above all; the one who is only from the earth is of the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.
John 6:38 - For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:51 - I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats from this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world also is My flesh.

Here are six passages that tell us that Jesus was in Heaven with God, and left Heaven to become a man on Earth.

John 1:1 does not say Jesus was in heaven before coming to the Earth. The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ.