Scripture does not say that. Re-read
1 John 4,
2 John 1
That is a non-sequitur fallacy. Trinitarians affirm "The Only Begotten Son who is the " Word" became flesh." See John 1:1. Scripture makes it clear that that the spirit of anti-Christ denies the Incarnation.
Re-read 1 John 4, 2 John 1
The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, united by the Eucharist, so why do you reject the Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, made abundantly clear in John 6?
For the same reasons you deny, reject, or dismiss the writings of the earliest Christians of the first 300 years?
For the same reasons you reject the authoritive proclamations of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.???
So WHO is denying WHAT here???
I know what 1 John 4 says, do you? It seems to me you don't. 1 John 4 tells us that anyone who denies that Jesus Christ coming in the flesh is an antichrist. This scripture doesn't say Jesus is God or that it was God who became flesh, this scripture simply states that he that denies Jesus Christ coming in the flesh is the antichrist. You will find no scripture written down that says, Jesus Christ is God. There are plenty of scriptures written down that say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We have scriptures written down that God sent his Son to us. So since the scriptures make it clear that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and since the scriptures show us that The Only True God Jehovah sent his Son to us then its obvious that Jesus Christ who is the Only Begotten Son of God is the "Word." It was the Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh.
The Eucharist that you speak of is a Catholic thing. I don't believe what the Catholics say about the Eucharist. What the scriptures show, that is written down in the Bible is that Jesus instituted the Lords Evening Meal. When Jesus gave his disciple bread to eat he said this means my body, in other words, the bread represented His body. Jesus didn't literally give them human flesh to eat nor do the scriptures show that Jesus said that after they ate the bread that it would magically turn into Jesus human flesh. Same with the wine it simply represented his blood, it wasn't literally his blood nor do these scriptures show that Jesus said that the wine would literally turn into literal blood.
If you were to read all the words of the Apologists, you would find that while they deviated in some respects from the teachings of the Bible, none of them taught that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit were coequal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom.
This is also true of other writers of the second and third centuries, such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, and Novatian. While some came to equate the Father and the Son in certain respects, in other ways they viewed the Son as subordinate to God the Father. And none of them even speculated that the holy spirit was equal to the Father and the Son. For example, Origen (c. 185 to 254 C.E.) states that the Son of God is “the First-born of all creation” and that the Scriptures “know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation.”31
Any objective reading of these early church authorities will show that Christendom’s Trinity doctrine was not in existence in their time. As
The Church of the First Three Centuries says:
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as any fact in the history of human opinions.”32
Actually, before Tertullian, the Trinity was not even mentioned. And Tertullian’s “heterodox” Trinity was much different from that believed today.
The Roman emperor Constantine played an important role at Nicea 325 CE. Viewing religious division as a threat to the unity of the empire, he summoned a council of bishops at Nicea in 325 C E the bishops didn't summon this meeting. After two months of debate, the unbaptized emperor decided in favor of the Trinitarian advocates. Reports the “Encyclopædia Britannica” (Vol. 6, p. 386): “Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the [Nicean] creed, many of them much against their inclination.” Dissenters were banished.
Not long after this, however, the dissenters at Nicea were back in Constantine’s favor and a chief advocate of Trinitarianism was banned. Later, the Trinitarians were favored again, by Emperor Theodosius, who closed the places of worship of those who would not conform.
Thus, pagan philosophy and decrees of political rulers helped to shape the doctrine of the Trinity and give it the popularity it has today.
