Nicean Trinity against Socinus' Trinity

OpeningEssentially, my opponent and I are arguing past each other. We are both using Scripture to prove our point, and we both interpret it in different ways. Obviously, only one interpretation can be correct, but I argue there is only one way to prove which interpretation is right: The historical-grammatical understanding of it. Jesus did not come to the philosopher's and the fully educated of his day; he went to fishermen and tax collectors and other such people. The New Testament was written for the layman and written by laymen. That being said, I will still present my rebuttals to his interpretations of Scripture, and I will further validate my point that the early Christians did not believe in a trinity.Adonai not Equivalent to YahwehIt doesn't matter if Yahweh is called adonai. The angel Gabriel is also called adonai in Daniel 10:16. Should we also argue that Gabriel is also god in nature? No. Jesus is not Yahweh, and nowhere does Scripture make this claim. If my opponent wants to prove his point, he must provide proof showing that early Christians believed Jesus was Yahweh, the one true God.The Wisdom/Logos of GodThe Wisdom of God is created being. Yahweh is called the beginning, but Jesus is called the beginning of creation and the firstborn of creation, not the "source" which is an erroneous translation into english. The Logos of God is not the same nature as God. The Logos concept is a jewish concept that comes before the apostle John. The Logos concept comes from Philo (http://en.wikipedia.org...) who preceded Christianity. “And even if there be not as yet anyone who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his firstborn word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. . . . For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is His most ancient Word.” (Philo, “On the Confusion of Tongues,” XXVIII, 146-147, page 247) “Since whatever is subsequent to God, even if it be the most ancient of all other things, still has only the SECOND PLACE when compared with that omnipotent Being” (IX, 51, p.325) John was writing writing his gospel to a Jewish audience, who would immediately recognize the logos concept. John was not saying Jesus and Yawhweh were one in nautre, rather he was confirming Philo's teachings. Jesus as Angel Pro: "I agree that Job 33:23 is Messianic but it didn't say that the "messenger" is angelic in nature." I will again quote Job 33:23: ""If there is an angel as mediator for him, One out of a thousand" Pro agrees that this passage is a messianic prophecy.This is a problem for him, because the messiah had to be "one out of a thousand". If Jesus is Yahweh in nature, this is not possible. Pro also does not believe an angel could have redeemed us. 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus" Jesus could not have been the same nature as God, because a mediator is a third party. Pro: "Galations 4:14 even if it's true that he's called an "angel" in here it will not mean that he is a "ethereal creature" but as it is, a "messenger" of God.One who brings message"Please provide one passage of Scripture where "angel of god" does not mean "ethereal creature". If my opponent fails to do this, my point stands that Jesus is not God in nature, but an angel in nature.Hebrews 1 explicity says Jesus is an angel. Verse 5: "To which angel did he say, "You are my son, today I have begotten you?" My opponnent wants to argue that this verse is a sarcastic question which would be scolding the reader's audience. On the other hand, the author is asking a question "which angel" and the obvious answer is "Jesus is the angel that God chose." If my opponent wants to prove that it is saying Jesus isn't an angel, he must show evidence that the point of this letter was to scold it's readers for heresy.Pre-Christian TrinitiesI provided evidence of pre-christian trinities, and my opponent rejected them out of ingorance. These deities were most definitely trinities, but they hurt my opponent's argument, so he rejects them. The Christian trinity was not the first trinity.AriusMy opponent calls Arius a heretic. I disagree quite strongly. Arius did not believe in the trinity. Because of this, he was excommunicated from the church, and ultimately he was poisoned and killed by the church. To cover up for their wrongdoing, they proclaimed that God had killed Arius. This is utter blasphemy, and this incident is understood by modern scholars, and a detailed exploitation of this event is covered by Sir Isaac Newton, linked below. After this, anyone else who rejected the trinity or even kept books by Arius were also killed. (http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)Post NiceaGREGORY OF NYSSA (circa. 335-395 C.E.): “...The whole city is full of it, the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask “Is my bath ready?” the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing...” (http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.com...)The laymen of the day did not approve of the Trinity doctrine, however as noted previously, they were forced to accept the Trinity theology or they were killed for "heresy". This is the origin of the trinity concept; it's followers accepted it out of fear of persecution and slaughter.