Three in One, One in Three, Huh?

I have been doing some reading recently about the Trinity. In its most general sense, the Trinity is a theological doctrine that says that the Father (God), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are all different, yet the same. No, there weren't any typos in that last sentence. They are three faces of what has been referred to as the "Godhead". They are eternal and were not created. They have always existed.

During the development of the early Church, the relationship between God and Jesus was hotly debated. One group, led by a man named Arius, held that God was eternal, but Jesus was not. God created Jesus and was therefore superior to him. This view is called Arianism. In the 330s A.D., the pope called a council that was held at Nicea. One of the issues the various church fathers discussed was this relationship between God and Jesus. After debating the matter for a while, the council voted (yes, VOTED) to see which view would be considered orthodox. By an overwhelming majority, the so-called Trinitarians prevailed. To this day, modern Christianity is overwhelmingly Trinitarian. However, this took a while. There were two post-Nicea Roman Emperors who were Arians. Even after the Roman Empire embraced Trinitarianism as orthodox, most of the so-called "barbarians" (those Christians living outside the boundaries of the empire) were still Arians. It wasn't until the 8th or 9th century that Arianism really began to die out.

In the 17th century, one of the great minds in human history, determined that Arianism was the "true" form of Christianity. Isaac Newton was not only one of the foremost scientists ever, but he was also very well-versed in theology. He spent far more time in his life studying the Bible and theological issues than he did doing experiments and writing about them. Almost none of his theological writings were published until well after his death. If they had been, he would have become a pariah in European culture and would not have been able to produce his scientific theories. Newton determined that some of the main Biblical passages supporting Trinitiarianism were actually fraudulent.

Frankly, I don't see what all of the fuss is about. From what I have read, there are Biblical passages supporting each position. Trinitiarianism became orthodox via popular vote almost seventeen centuries ago. Yet, a man with the capacities of Newton did his own research and reached a different decision. While it strikes me as odd, I'm not necessarily against a democratic approach to determining what should be considered "orthodox", and I'm not saying that the Arian view is correct simply because Newton took that position. I simply don't see why everyone cares so much. Does it change the basic message of Christianity? Does it really matter what the essential essence of Jesus is? Does it matter if there is a hierarchy between God and Son? It seems to me to be much like arguing over the color of the table cloth at the Last Supper.