Nicean Trinity against Socinus' Trinity

Jesus is Adonai, Not YahwehJohn/Isaiah TestimonyMy opponent argues that John is attributing as Jesus being the glory that Isaiah saw. I somewhat agree. In Isaiah's vision, he saw Yahweh, (the LORD) as apparant in the text. However, as attributed later in the book of Isaiah, it is said (53:1): "Who has believed our message ? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?"Jesus is not identified as Yahweh (LORD, tetragrammaton), but as the ARM of Yahweh. Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh and Jesus' glory- the "arm". Paul's TestimonyPhillipians 2:9-11 "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."Understand that the emphasis of the bowing is all towards the "glory of God the Father." Also, compare with;1 Chronicles 29:20 "Then David said to all the assembly, "Now bless Yahweh your God." And all the asembly blessed Yahweh, the god of their fathers, and bowed low and did homage to Yahweh and to the king.AlsoPsalms 2:11-12 "Worship Yahweh with reverence..Do homage to the Son"AgainJeremiah 30:9 (Messianic Prophecy) "But they shall serve Yahweh their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.'Under David's reign, they worshipped David as king and Yahweh as God, but did so in one act of reverance. Jesus (as prophesied by the quote I gave from Jeremiah) took the place of David's worship. If Jesus is supposed to be worshipped as Yahweh, and not as taking David's place, then either this prophecy can never be fulfilled, or my opponent is wrong in assuming Jesus is Yahweh. I argue this is sufficient evidenc for Jesus being merely God's servant and our king, but not equal in worship to Yahweh.On the LogosMy opponent argues for 3 different definitions for the Logos, which he uses no sources, only argues out of the fallacy of assertion, and goes on to say that the early church believed in the eternal generation, again based only on his fallacy of assertion and by no means of actual evidence. As previously mentioned, the Jew Philo wrote about the Logos of God, and it was an actual being, which is why Philo called him the archangel. The archangel is the first being that God created, which is why Paul and John kept referring to Jesus as the beginning of God's creation.Jesus as AngelPro: "The burden of proof is on my opponent because he didn't even qualify and gave substantial evidence that these thousand messengers in Job 33:23 are indeed angelic in nature but rather, my opponent just assumed that it is without contextual evidence."False. Job 33:23 Shows that the Messiah had to be one out of a thousand. It doesn't matter what the nature of those other thousand are, whether they be angels or humans. Either way the Messiah can't share Yahweh's nature, as God is NOT one out of a thousand. This reference from Job explicitly disproves the Trinity.Angel of YahwehJudges 13: 15 Then Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “Please let us detain you so that we may prepare a young goat for you.” 16 The angel of the Lord said to Manoah, “Though you detain me, I will not eat your [d]food, but if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the Lord.” For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the Lord. 17 Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “What is your name, so that when your words come to pass, we may honor you?” 18 But the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is [e]wonderful?” 19 So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to the Lord, and He performed wonders while Manoah and his wife looked on. 20 For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground.My opponent argued that the Angel of Yahweh was "very God". I definitely believe the Angel of Yahweh was important, but I disagree on the conention that he was God. As shown from this passage, Manoah offered to sacrifice an animal to the Angel of Yahweh. The Angel said, "if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to Yahweh." If the Angel of Yahweh was indeed truly God, he would have accepted the sacrifice. He rejected the sacrifice and demanded the only one who deserved true worship was Yahweh and no one else.Hebrews Chapter 1It should be understood that the phrase "son of God" is a phrase that is only ever used of Angels. Begotten is a term that is used for being born of a woman. When it is said that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, it shows that he is the only angel who was born of a woman. My opponent asserts that Hebrews is calling Jesus the "only-offspring who is God in nature", but that is a blatant misrepresentation of the original Greek. He twists Scripture so he can argue his claim.Pre-Christian TrinitiesA trinity of Gods is three different Gods who are equally God, usually by means of nature. The Hindu God is most definitely a trinity, as it shows the three gods on one neck and three heads, or other similar concepts (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I argue this also severely hurts my opponent's trinitarian claims, as Christianity was the LAST religion to adopt a trinity, NOT the first.Post-Nicea and Poor AriusPro: "we will never find Trinitarians in the 1st,2nd and 3rd centuries murdering heretics."You won't find any Trinitarians in the first two centuries at all, as you have failed to provide evidence of early Christians writing about a trinitarian Christian God.Pro: "The Son within the Father was birthed out from the womb of his Father's heart"This is a concept that only the Gnostic Christians believed. (See: "Gospel of Truth" by Valentinius, leader of the Gnostics http://gnosis.org...) After Arius pointed out that this concept would mean that Yahweh was somewhat human in that He could produce a generation after him, the bishops at the Nicean council decided that the Son was 'eternally begotten" which in itself is purely an oxy-moron, having no value in a logical discussion.My opponent blatantly asserts that Arius "was a Trinitarian before he recantd his faith". This is truly erroneous. Here is a quote from one of Arius' letters: "Since my father Ammonius is going to Nicomedia, it seemed reasonable and proper to greet you through him, remembering at the same time the innate love and affection which you have for the brothers on account of God and his Christ, because the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son; begotten without begetting". (http://www.fourthcentury.com...)Arius was chased down, persecuted, and murdered because he would not accept that the Son was "begotten without begetting" (which, again, is an oxy-moron that is purely ridiculous and not valid for a logical discussion). ConclusionMy opponent argues that the Trinitarian concept of God is the correct view. If this is so, it discredits the Old Testament prophecies that say Christ would take over the kingly worship of David, and that he would be 'one out of a thousand'. John 10:35 "Scripture cannot be broken." If this is the case, then there is no trinity. Yahweh is alone unbegotten, without beginning, and the true Almighty God. Jesus is his servant that was given to us to to redeem us from sin, and we worship Jesus as our King David and we worship Yahweh as our Creator God.I thank my opponent for this engaging and thought-provoking debate. I understand his trinitarian concepts of God, but I hope I supplied an alternative view that is both rational and honest.