I won’t spend a lot of time w/ you as I know how this works for you. But I will answer some of your q’s.
No. I’m not athiest.
Your assertion that there’s more evidence for the Trinity than against is your opinion, not supported by FACT.
I never indicated that the Trinity wasn’t taught before the creed. I simply indicated it wasn’t taught by many. The non Trinity, for lack of a better term , was taught as well as the Trinity theory, thus, one of the reasons for the council at Nicea. The Trinity was hardly universally accepted doctrine as evidenced by the majority of bishops, & a far greater number of bishops, at Rimini/Seleucia who voted against the theory just 25 years later, & without the threats of Constantine right there.
As far as the writings of the people of the period, you mean the non Trinitarians like Arian, Origen, etc., etc.?
Peace my brother.
You have failed to prove your case by even the slightest of margins
I simply indicated it wasn’t taught by many.
that is not what you indicated earlier.
The Trinity was hardly universally accepted doctrine as evidenced by the majority of bishops, & a far greater number of bishops, at Rimini/Seleucia who voted against the theory just 25 years later, & without the threats of Constantine right there.
Again - research your history. Arians pulled a power play using a compliant Constantine who became an arian.
As far as the writings of the people of the period, you mean the non Trinitarians like Arian, Origen, etc., etc.?
Again, I said look at those considered as the ANF writers. Arian was not one of those.
Origen's views were subordinalist - but that doesn't mean he rejected the Trinity. He was orthodox in that regard, his subordiationalism reflected what is referred to as the economy of the Trinity - not the ontology. That is why St. Athanasius defends Origen's orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus replied to the heretics who claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.