John 1:1

I truly believe that we are going to see a day where the Oneness view will either predominate or at least be seen as a legitimate alternative to the Trinitarian hypothesis. Exegetically Trinitarianism is a needless interpreting of the text.

Eg. The Trinitarian argument is always fraught with a presupposition. In regards to pros, and contrary to many Trinitarian apologists, pros does not demand the notion of "in a face-to-face relationship with." Only the context can determine if this sort of thing is meant. So in order to demonstrate that pros in John 1:1 is being used in this way, one would first have to successfully argue that the logos is a distinct person from God, who is able to be in a face-to-face relationship.

This cannot happen. They try to use pros as proof that the logos is a distinct person from God. It becomes circular. If the logos is not a reference to another person then pros would only hold its normal meaning of "with."

John's parallel account in I John 1:1-2 demonstrates that John did not have the idea that the logos was a distinct person from God in mind. It is said that the logos of "life" was with (pros) the Father. God's life was with him, but clearly not in a relationship with Him. If God's life can be with Him but not be a distinct person from Him, then neither do we have reason to believe that John's use of pros in John 1:1 indicates that the logos is a distinct person from God, and thus no reason to think pros in John 1:1 means "in a face-to-face relationship with."

Many Jews and Muslims reject Christianity, not merely due to their depravity, but also because of the "Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. It is not Christian, it is Romish and to MANY (esp. if you enjoy history) that means ALOT. Protestants haven't PROTESTED ENOUGH.

.