The Master Test
Does the argument prove a second divine person from John 1:1–3 without smuggling Logos = "second person of the Trinity" as a definition, and without inflating pros ("with") into hypostasis-generating grammar?
×L-1 · Logos labeled, not definedTreats "Logos" as a name for "the second person" rather than defining it semantically.
×P-1 · Pros = personhoodTreats pros alone as proof of two divine persons. Predicate Distribution Fallacy.
×D-1 · Domain not classified"With God" used without first declaring ad intra or ad extra.
×G-1 · Grammar = ontologyTreats grammatical subjecthood as if it counts persons.
×B-1 · No bridge premiseThe unstated jump from "with" to "second hypostasis" is never argued.
×14-1 · 1:14 read backward into 1:1Incarnational realization treated as proof Logos was always a person-label.
×I-1 · Mask-psych incarnationThe divine person becomes immediate psych-seat of Jesus' learning, prayer, suffering.
×W-1 · Wisdom hypostatizedTreats wisdom-tradition personification as if it already proved a second divine self.
×T-1 · Theology importedDefines Logos using post-Nicene categories, then "proves" them from John 1.
✓Valid pressureDefine Logos. Classify domain. Show the bridge. Keep Christ's humanity intact.