The following has been excerpted from
original, which is available at link below
...John 1 and word ‘logos’ has long been one of most hotly debated passages of Bible, which also relates to currency most theologians grant it as a supposed proof text for supposed essential doctrines like deity of Christ, trinitarianism, and related tenets. For this reason alone, passage is arguably of dubious value as a basic doctrinal proof text, which is my first point. It simply doesn’t make sense to feature such a controversial passage as a primary proof text for fundamental tenets of doctrine. …There are plenty of Bible passages regarding nature, identity, and origins of Yahshua Messiah, and His relationship to God Father that are much more clear and concise than this. Nevertheless, reasonable or not, since John’s Prologue is so commonly employed as a litmus test for defining who is a true Christian, need to investigate its true meaning is far more than tangent theological aerobics.
A reasonable approach to interpreting Scriptural precepts is outlined in Isaiah 28 and echoed in many other passages throughout Scripture:
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from milk, and drawn from breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Is 28:9-10 KJV)
Like any branch of knowledge, spiritual truths of Scripture follow a natural order. For example, we wouldn’t attempt to teach algebra to those who haven’t learned basic math, and, likewise, if an algebra problem were to yield answers that defied underlying precepts (like 2x3=5), then it would not be accepted as true. Similarly, we shouldn’t attempt to interpret implication of nature and identity of Christ in John’s Prologue outside numerous Scriptural precepts that naturally precede it, and neither should we accept any interpretation that contradicts same. Otherwise, product of our interpretation ends up being is what theologians call eisegesis, which is when someone reads their own bias into a passage rather than drawing true meaning out of text itself, which is called exegesis. As I will show, this is what is commonly done with regard to Prologue.
If there is any consensus amongst scholars regarding John 1, it is that by and large English translations simply don’t convey full implications of John’s original intent, particularly with regard to Greek word ‘logos’, which is commonly translated ‘word’. Yet, many shamelessly assert major doctrinal points from English text as though it accurately represents original thought, even though it is well known that it doesn’t. These seek to render passage into a simple unequivocal statement of deity and incarnation of Christ, typically arguing that since “the word was God” (v. 1) and “the word became flesh” (v. 14), then God became man Yahshua Messiah (Jesus Christ), who is, therefore, God. This bias has been incorporated into most of popular English translations and paraphrases, some going so far as to misrepresent ‘logos’ as ‘Christ’ or ‘the Son’ even though original Greek text says nothing of sort. Then, building on this shaky foundation, generally follows many explanations of how this human being, Son of God, is also God. Because of these things, not original thought represented by John’s words, this verse has become a virtual cornerstone of so-called ‘orthodox Christology’. Having encountered many apologists for these doctrines over years, I have found no other passage more highly regarded as a supposed proof text for these misguided conclusions regarding nature and identity of one true God and His Son, Yahshua. Obviously, my own bias is contrary to ‘orthodox Christology’, but point here is neither my opponents’ bias nor mine, but what John truly meant in prologue of his gospel.
Considerably elevating importance of carefully scrutinizing this passage is accompanying belief that affirmation of deity of Christ is primary defining element between true Christianity and cults. In past, dissenters have been silenced by whatever force was necessary – seizure of property, banishment, imprisonment, torture, and execution. In modern times, they are held to be anti-Christ heretics who are stigmatized, vilified, and ostracized by most vocal proponents of ‘orthodox Christianity’, while overwhelming majority of two billion or so professing Christians of world quietly acquiesce to their teachings; same spirit, different season.
While Scriptures repeatedly uphold belief in true identity of Yahshua as step one must take to truly enter ranks of Christianity, one they were to confess allegiance to was “the Christ, Son of living God” (Mt 16:16) – NOT ‘God Son, Second Person of Triune God’ or any such thing! The revelation of Lord Yahshua’s true identity as preached by apostles was always straightforward, simple, and comprehendible by even most simple minded would-be disciple. It was to be foundation upon which Yahshua would build His Church, opposition by gates of hell notwithstanding. Yet, concept of Christ not only alleged to be set forth in prologue of John’s gospel, but also held to be essential elements of Christian faith are also held to be a great mystery that transcends human comprehension. …True faith is found in believing and holding fast to provable truths that are learned precept upon precept, most basic of which is that Yahshua is “the Christ, Son of God”. Neither Scripture nor apostles require any further confession.
Thus, we are left with a passage that has been grossly misrepresented standing as a cornerstone of doctrines held so important as to justify both dividing up body of Christ and doing violence against dissenters. The true identity of Christ as preached by apostles and revealed in Scripture is not so mysterious or incomprehensible that new and would-be believers can’t see it clearly for themselves. There is no need to rely upon a controversial passage to establish who “the Christ, Son of living God” is unless aim is to otherwise represent Him, which is exactly what orthodox theologians have done with John 1. The Bible tells us to “prove all things; hold fast that which is true” (1 Th 5:21 KJV), and application of that precept could be no more important than it is with regard to who Lord and Savior truly is. Again, John’s Prologue raises so many issues that scholars can't agree upon, it is hardly well suited for purpose of proving any major doctrinal point, much less such a supposedly basic and important tenet of Christian faith that must be understood and affirmed by even new and non-believers as a condition of being received by others in family of God.
