The form that this paper has taken is, at best, an overview of the positions that it seeks to represent. They are complex and contentious, and require certain understandings of both positions. However, at the heart of the matter lies the question of whether or not one side has a sound understanding of the foundational historical assumptions, or are they assuming something and reading the text in light of those assumptions.
Anti-trinitarians, namely Oneness proponents, seem to operate on certain fundamental assumptions and read the text in light of those assumptions and give no regard to whether or not they can result in contradictions. Trinitarians seem to seek to understand the text in light of what the original author meant, that his experience is what he is attempting to explain to his readers. When this is brought to how those Jews and their underlying monotheism is represented by themselves up to the point where writers, such as John, were trying to be clear and careful and being certain that their experience matched up with the historical experience, that they weren’t necessarily saying anything new as much as making clarification, so that their audience wouldn’t run away screaming in protest.
When these historical concepts are brought to the presentations of anti-trinitarians and trinitarians a clear distinction can be seen in that monotheism isn’t monolithic, and historical understandings can be skewed by not wanting to see the facts. In the final analysis, one must judge by the evidence presented not only historically, but in interaction with the texts themselves.