Imagican said:
Revelation 3:14
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
I take it that you don't see this as a statement confessing that Christ was the 'first' of God's creation? Another no, and double no? Now who is picking and selecting what they choose to 'believe' and disregarding that which doesn't agree with their theology?
You should be very careful when making such statements, especially when you apparently haven't studied Rev. 3:14 very thoroughly.
"These things says the Amen". Isaiah 65:16 states, "
He who blesses himself in the earth shall bless himself in the
God of truth. And he who swears in the earth shall swear by the
God of truth; because the former distresses are forgotten; and because they are hidden from My eyes."
"God of truth" is also literally "God the Amen." The word for "amen" is used there, so there is good reason to believe that this is what is being referred to in Rev. 3:14 and all the Jews would have realized the connection.
"The beginning of God's creation". This needs to be understood in light of Col. 1:15-17 and John 1:1-3:
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For
by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Rev. 3:14 isn't saying that Jesus is the first creature, the first created thing, rather that he is the beginner of creation, the One through whom "all things" were created; Christ was the instrument of all creation.
The argument can also be made that the word for "beginning,"
arche, also means "origin," "ruler," "leader," "the active cause".
Regardless, this verse does nothing against trinitarianism and may actually support it more than anything, especially when seen in the light of supporting Scripture. In the very least, it makes no statement whatsoever about the nature of God.
And as potluck pointed out, "the early Jews knew exactly what Jesus was talking about when He claimed sonship with God." This is clearly seen in John 10:33-36:
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you
but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world,
'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
The Jews realized the difference between the biblical reference to "sons of God" and Jesus' claim to be
the Son of God. This claim made Jesus equal with God, it made him God.
One really shouldn't accuse people of picking and choosing what they want to believe and "disregarding that which doesn't agree with their theology" when that person is taking one verse and divorcing it from the whole of Scripture to support their belief. As I have stated many times, trinitarianism at least attempts to take in account
all that Holy Scripture reveals about the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Every other theology I have seen so far does not do this, clearly ignoring what doesn't fit.
Seriously, that is what [your post] was. If any one here is to 'see' something of value, :fadein: surely it needs more than 'your posts' talk. 
: 
: Or has God made a mistake in Ecclesiastes 3:15? Interesting!!