The statements in John to which you refer draw on a different conceptuality—either Jesus as wisdom/logos or Jesus as a son in intimate relation to his Father. They are not interpretations or explanations of the lordship motif. The phrase monogenēs theos is also textually debatable and in context next to unintelligible.
I am not sure why you would say that it is “next to unintelligible.” The earliest and best manuscripts do not have υἱὸς. The earliest manuscript containing “the only begotten Son” is A. However, P66, P75, Aleph, Aleph(1), B, C, L, Syr(hmg.p), 33, and cop(bo) all have either one unique God or the one unique God. While the text is still debated, the textual evidence for NU (Nestle Aland/UBS) is very strong.
I am curious why you feel so free in overturning and disputing standard interpretations of a text like Jn. 1:1 without overing any justification whatsoever for your argument. It is either this way or that way you assert, but you offer absolutely no argument for your assertions. You simply make statements as if these statements provide ample proof and should be accepted without dispute. Well, I reject your position and request that you provide sound exegetical ground for your conclusion.
It is exceedingly clear that John is talking about Christ in 1-18 of his first chapter. He says that Jesus was in the beginning with God. He says that Jesus is God. He says that all things came into existence through Jesus. Jesus created all things. Paul said the same thing in Col. John tells us that God was made flesh and we beheld Him. He closes his prologue by saying that no one has seen God at any time; the one unique God who is in the bosom of the Father, this one has explained Him. This one is Jesus Christ! The Son of God, the Son of Man, the Messiah, God of very God.
Ignatius, writing sometime between 98-117 said this commenting on Jn. 1:1
Ignatius affirmed that “God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.”
Another proof of early worship of Christ involve the use of the Nomina Sacra in all second and third century MSS of the Greek NT. Making a name nomen sacrum desecularized the term, lifting it to sacred status. (Comfort)
The evidence, historical, exegetical, textual, and theological that Jesus burst onto the scene as God in human flesh is overwhelming. It is a settled issue in the Church and no settled issue ought to be reconsidered without compelling evidence. Your argument provides no such evidence. It seems to be the product of dissatiscation with current views of God that are offensive. Therefore, basic tenets of the ancient Church must be rejected in favor of rational, anachronistic arguments designed to recreate a story that does God better service. It reminds me of the Greek allegories of the offensive behaviors of the gods. It is a reaction to something in the text that the proponents find unsatisfactory.