Not really. It could just as easily be interpreted as referring to two separate beings of equal power and status than one being in two persons.
John 10:30 mentioned above seems more clear, but just prior to that you have "My Father who has given them to Me", which makes no sense if they are literally the same being. Neither does Christ on the cross asking why God has forsaken him.
The problem is the Biblical canon manifested out of what were countless differing philosophies and schools of thought in early Christianity, and John seems to be one of the more mystical books to make it in. But Christianity couldn't even agree on the nature of Jesus' divinity at first, and went to war against itself for centuries over details like this.
> Neither does Christ on the cross asking why God has forsaken him.
He's quoting Psalm 22. Jesus very frequently quotes the psalms, probably more than any other book, and "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is the opening line. Given the number of "coincidences" between the psalm and the events then occurring, he is either deliberately making his claim as a messiah or the redactor inserted the quote, depending on your beliefs. ("They have pierced my hands and feet", "They divide my garments among them, and cast lots for my clothing", "all who see me mock me, they sneer and shake their heads, he trusts in the Lord, let the Lord deliver him.")
I don't really see how it's possible to read John 1 as implying two separate beings, unless we start quibbling about what a "being" is. There are similar statements in the other gospels.
> The problem is the Biblical canon manifested out of what were countless differing philosophies and schools of thought in early Christianity, and John seems to be one of the more mystical books to make it in. But Christianity couldn't even agree on the nature of Jesus' divinity at first, and went to war against itself for centuries over details like this.
It's true the early churches were divided but it's important not to overstate that division, as you're doing here. The earliest post-apostolic writings we have are already referencing all for gospels and nearly all the epistles. There were divisions in theology on things like the exact nature of Jesus's divinity, but except in the case of niche sects, it was over what most people now would regard as hair-splitting. It's just people used to be much more fanatical and willing to go to war over things like "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" vs "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" or "The logos/Jesus/Son was co-eternal with Father" vs "the Father created the Son before Time and he's divine but not as divine as the Father."
I think the most productive way to view this aspect of Christianity, unless you're addicted to obscure theological disputes, is to simply say that the Christian idea of God is as an omnipotent transcendental being whose nature is therefore obviously something beyond the powers human comprehension, which would make sense if you want to posit the idea of a capital-G God even as a non-Christian.
