The Nicene Creed and Succeeding Councils: Boon or Bane? Part 2

 I have read enough of the Apostolic Fathers to conclude that they did not unanimously believe in the Trinity the way we now do as a result of the Council of Nicaea which created the Nicene Creed, the core of which was to settle the concept of the Trinity.

The only theologically-related unanimities from the primitive church were the following facts, among others:

1. Their Old Testament was the Septuagint (LXX) which contained the Apochryphal books that most  protestants reject today
2. They prayed (not recite) the Lord's prayer three times a day. The believed that praying this was a command of the Lord Jesus.
3. They believed in the Kingdom of God as distinct from the kingdom of the world such that they refused to enlist as soldiers because Christ told them to love their enemies and neighbor. They also declined to be involved in the world's politics, entertainment and almost anything to do with the kingdom of the world. The believed in separation and renouncing all to become a Christian
4. They believed that salvation has two stages. The first was water baptism to enter the Kingdom of God (NOT "prayer to receive Christ" as taught after the Reformation) and the second stage was our responsibility to maintain our citizenship in the kingdom by following its rules faithfully (e.g., The Great Commandment, Sermon on the Mount) and maintaining our sonship in the family of God. They believed that we can lose our salvation in the second stage.
5. They believed that in baptism (entering the kingdom of God), they are in union with the body of Christ in death and dying to self and in the resurrection life of Christ (being born again)
6. They believed that in the Eucharist we partake and "feed on" of the actual blood and body of Christ making the Eucharist our "food for immortality" according to Tertullian

Now we go back to their varied articulations of what the church later termed the Trinity, some of which were even declared by the later churches to be heresies, why is this so?

Of course, we are all aware that the church fathers are human and fallible, so are the theologians of today.

But what do we learn from the diversity of theological propositions they handed down to us. Shouldn't this drive us to analyze what was most important to them in the whole scope of their writings?

WE should be happy that in the final judgment, God judges based on obedient submission to his will, NOT on theology.

We also learn, especially from their doctrine of baptism and the Eucharist, that the early Christians looked at Scripture with the eyes of faith instead of the eyes of reason. Reason or sight sees material bread and material wine but the eyes of faith see the blood and body of Christ. Since Christ openly and explicitly declared in John 6:53-57

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is [k]food indeed, and My blood is [l]drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.

We need to learn to interpret the New Testament in the same way the early Christians did - LITERALLY!