I had technical issues posting this in Off Topic, let's see if it is as bad here.

Let's do this. I'm ready for an argument.GS user

Due to time constraints I myself am not ready for an argument, but I can respond to your first point.

Here in John 1:1 you presuppose English grammar is to work the same way upon a completely different language. Essentially, the article does not work the same way in Greek as it does in English and to base an entire argument on this without actually knowing Greek is bad argumentation. If you were to actually attempt to read the Greek and acknowledge article usage then you'd see that articles behave extremely different in Greek than English. A simple example of this would be the lack of such thing as an indefinite article. In fact, theretrullyis no "definite" article but simply an article that does not necessarily denotedefinitcy.

However, I do know Koine Greek.

John 1:1 states this, "?? ???? ?? ? ????? ??? ? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ? ?????." Here is a breakdown of the usage in a very literal translation.

?? ???? (In beginning) - Note here in this verysentencewe would expect in English for an article to be here but it is not due to different usage.

?? ? ????? (was the Word) - "?" is the article in its nominative usage.

??? ? ????? (and the Word) - same as above.

?? ???? ??? ???? (was from the God) - "???" is the article but is in reference to????its accusative form.

??? ???? (and God) - No article here as you say. However, the lack of article is not here does not mean that it is "a God" as we would in English but it is referencing back to the previous usage just two letters before. Here we see what is refered to as the anaphoric usage of the article in that it references back to a previous usage of the same word before. The???? here is the exact same God mentioned just before. One could thus easily understand the text to say this, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and this God was the Word" or purhaps, "the Word was this God." Certainly there is no demonistrative pronoun in this sentence but the meaning would be the same with or without it.

?? ? ????? (was the Word). - And finally, this God who is spoken of was - is, in fact - the Word who is spoken of. This Word, as verse 14 suggests, became Jesus. The Word is the Son of God incarnate, the invisible God made visible, Jesus Christ.

Also of note, to refer to this word we are discussing as the definite article is wrong in and of itself. As there exists only one article in Greek there is simple the article. What does this article typicially denote? Rather than it expressing how "definite" a noun might be it expresses attention. Or rather, it functions to direct the reader's attention.

This exact usage of the Greek article is not limited to John 1:1 but it is also used elsewhere. Take for example Ephesians 2:8 which begins "For by grace you have been saved" and can also be translated "For by this grace you have been saved." This "grace" relates back to the proceeding verse which states, "so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." This grace is but the same grace just as this God in John 1:1 who was the Word is the same God who was with the Word.

Also of note, much of your debate is simply trying to read the Bible without acknowledging the doctrine of the Trinity. You seem to think Jesus' humanity and Jesus' Godhood are contradictory but every orthodox (little "o") Christian to have ever lived would say that he is both fully God and fully man.