So the manner that I post isn't 'nice enough' to be considered worthy of consideration.
No, I think Albion and other trinitarian members have gone to great lengths to give your remarks a fair hearing. I make a point to reply to your posts on a per-paragraph basis.
Over the years, the only people that have ever commented on my 'style' are those that take offense to it due to disagreement.
I already pointed out, I'm not here to play the game of 'political correctness'. I'm not a politician and I'm not looking for VOTES. I try my best to be honest and offer what I'm able in the manner that I'm able.
And yet you quote politicians rather than religious authorities. If you want to sell your ideas, I propose that a more courteous approach would make your position.
But, I can certainly understand that when one's back is against a wall, whatever they can do to try and 'get away' is usually what they will do. You know, like attack the messenger rather than the message.
You would have a point were we losing this debate, however, everything I set out to show in the OP, that is to say, that the non-Trinitarian position is unbibkical and cannot be defended without rejecting a literal interpretation of John 1:1-14 and other pericopes, and without resorting to red herring criticisms of Roman Catholicism, has been shown to be true, even in this very post of yours.
Once again, let me offer, if the interpretation of the beginning of the Gospel of John doesn't FIT the rest of scripture, the obvious answer is that it is being misinterpreted.
Except it does fit. Numerous other verses in support of this doctrine have been provided by myself, @DerAlter,
@Job8 and other members. This is not even a subject of interpretation but of raw textual content.
You say it points to 'trinity'. I say it does no such thing. And you say that the scriptures are against 'non trinitarians. But it wasn't scripture that created 'trinity'. It was MEN. There have ALWAYS been those that deny 'trinity' since it was invented.
I would be interested to know what you believe John 1:1-14 actually means, since thus far you have simply insisted it cannot be taken literally.
God NEVER instructed us on 'trinity'. Not a single prophet even MENTIONED it. Nor His own Son or the apostles. It's history is clearly revealed. A group of men with more power than others basically 'took it to court' and won their case. Not unusual for a decision to be improperly concluded through the COURTS of men. We see it every day.
This again is untrue. If the Council of Nicea was a court, then its decision was rather successfully appealed given the persecution endured by Trinitarians for 50 years. Later, the Arian Visigoths took up arms against Christianity, before later converting in part to Islam.
And then let us consider the method that was used to instill it into the minds of those under their control. Threats, torture, murder. All these in the name of the NEW Christ created through 'trinity'. History speaks for itself.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Syriac Orthodox never tortured anyone. So this argument against Roman Catholicism fails rather miserably.
And then what about Martin Luther? While he pointed out a ton of false teachings and behavior by 'the church', what he never seemed to figure out was the SOURCE of the deceptions. HOW the 'church' was able to create and perpetuate such atrocities against the congregation, in the NAME of Christ............
I would offer that if you build upon a faulty foundation, anything is possible so far as corruption is concerned. We see the examples throughout history.
What Martin Luther objected to were deviant practices in the Roman Catholic church. If your argument is that the doctrine of the Trinity caused this abuse, it fails due to the example of the Syriac Orthodox and several other Trinitarian denominations that have an extremely good track record, such as the Assyrian Church of the East, and some of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates.
Even those that 'created trinity' openly admit that there is no where in scripture that it is actually revealed. That it is ONLY through 'divine revelation' that it can be revealed and even then it cannot be comprehended. It STILL remains a mystery. Yet you insist that scripture can not only REVEAL IT, but can plainly show that refusal to accept it can be revealed as 'false understanding' as well.
This is simply untrue. The arguments at Nicea were fought and won on the basis of Scripture. St. Epiphanius of Salamis provides a robust defense of the Trinity against Arianism in Book 2 of the Panarion.
And after I JUST got through offering you praise on your understanding, you then try and attack ME rather than the topic? Typical. For I have discussed this issue for YEARS with those that profess to believe in and follow 'trinity' and it always seems to work the same way. Once myself and others point out the basics that DISPROVE any possibility of 'trinity', then they go after the individuals instead of the topic. It would seem a recurring tactic that goes back to the beginning. I guess those of us who refuse to accept it should be thankful that the 'churches' no longer possess the authority to torture a confession out of us and then burn us alive. For it seems at times that the same 'spirit' exists today that was born the day it was decided to make 'trinity' LAW. Just saying.........
On the contrary, I am not going after you as an individual. I would appreciate it if you considered altering your posting style, but I do not regard your posting style as material to the debate.
I believe these words sum it up more precisely than any words I could ever offer:
The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, knowing the importance of names, they have assumed that of Christians, while they are mere Platonists, or anything rather than disciples of Jesus.
and then:
No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the Eastern States; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestley's learned writings on it are, or should be, in every hand. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
And here we have a dissappointingly vitriolic quote from Thomas Jefferson, a man who died in debt, failing to release his slaves, including slaves who were descended from him owing to his own promiscuity. I recognize that he is a popular colonial figure, and is correctly regarded as a statesman, however, morally, and as a religious figure, he has been subject to much criticism - I myself have personally viewed the slave quarters at Monticello, and was unimpressed. Among Trinitarians I can point to heroically virtuous people such as St. Basil the Great, inventor of the hospital, St. John Chrysostom, who was marched unto death for criticizing the lavish lifestyles in Constantinople, and others, right up until the present.
In quoting Jefferson you also rather prove my point that non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural. His "Jefferson Bible" contains the NT with all accounts of miracles et cetera excised, as he considered these to be interpolations of the priesthood.
As far as the Unitarians are concerned, they did not fulfill Thomas Jefferson's expectations, but in fact are one of the smallest religions; they are no longer specifically Christian. The largest denominational churches in the US are the Southern Baptists, the UMC and the Roman Catholics.
I should lastly like to observe that Thomas Jefferson's complaint of St. Athanasius wielding the "sword of civil government" is preposterous given that St. Athanasius spent much of his adult life in exile as a result of Arian persecutions, and on one occasion was very nearly killed. The doctrines espoused by Arius at Nicea were so offensive that St. Nicholas punched him in the face (and was then sternly rebuked by his peers, indeed he was deposed, but later reinstated, as a bishop, for resorting to violence). Also, it was St. Alexander of Alexandria who had excommunicated Arius; St. Athanasius, as his protodeacon, was simply defending hismpatriarch from a council that could have voted the other way.