yockeypuck on Nostr: >In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He ...

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was madeIn him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. [. . .] The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Is this one of those "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?" situations? This isn't an ambiguous, brief prooftext!