The Bible Teaches God is a Trinity

Why is it "so amusing" that I claim not to know who the "us/our" is? Why do you preclude "I don't know" as a legitimate answer to a mystery? I have no idea why such things amuse people. Either way, I've been to church many times, so I'm plenty used to being mocked for coming to different conclusions than most Christians – and especially for favoring no conclusion to a hasty one. John 1's description of the YHWH's coming down into human form does not identify the antecedent of "us / our" as including "the Word." Even if John was trying to identify the subject of Gen 1:26, we would have to view this skeptically as John could not possibly know any better than we can what the writer (see later) intended. It can be angels. Absence of Biblical evidence is not evidence that angels are not among the "us." First of all, we know for certain that angels exist. There is more Biblical evidence for this than the Trinity. As for the 4 points raised about angels, 1. The Bible does not specifically preclude angels from having assisted in Creation. 2. Angels may or may not have been made in the image of God. 3. If angels were made in the image of God, than we would be made in a similar image to angels. All these three points remain possible, thus a reference to angels in Gen 1:26 remains possible. Point 4, I believe is not possible (that angels are divine) – but it's not necessary to be possibly true for them to be included in Gen 1:26. I will certainly concede to you that a singular God would not be referring to Himself as "us / our." Either God has multiple persons or angels or some other beings other than YHWH are included. Bringing "harmony" to the Bible is not a fair test of Biblical teaching. It's a fair test for a Biblical hypothesis in that it poses a tentative idea that can explain certain mysteries. That is distinct from being an actual doctrine. Moses certainly did not write the entire Torah – especially the parts after his death and the parts after he finished writing. I saw your debate, too. It came to a great end, haha. We should hope that whoever compiled the Torah (or wrote, since it looked like you don't like the documentary idea) at least had access to that which Moses did write – otherwise we have serious accuracy problems. And it is relevant what whomever this author believed in, because he could not be trying to convey an idea he did not know or believe. If we can know that this author believed God to be multiple, than we can assume the Trinity is probably referenced in Gen 1:26. If this author did not believe in the Trinity or believed God was only one in person, than we know that the Trinity is not referenced in Gen 1:26. Since we don't know this (at least I don't), we don't know about Gen 1:26. Again, you mix up what I am saying. I do not say "If the Trinity were true, it would be more clearly stated in the Bible." What I am saying is "If the Bible more clearly stated the Trinity, than we could say that the Trinity is true." This is tantamount to no such nonsense as the atheist New York annual appearance argument. The Trinity could be perfectly true and it was no priority to the Biblical authors who knew it to attempt to convey in any clear terms. We can at least know that the Sabbath is binding, at the very least to Jews and that at the very least there is certainly no Biblical prohibition an alcohol. We have what we have and to assert a Trinity or a prohibition on alcohol are both going beyond what we have. Yachid means "only," which is not the same as absolute oneness. It means that there are no others. If anything, the fact that YHWH did not use Yachid in 6:4 shows that He is not claiming to be the only God that exists – at least not by that sentence. Job 35:10 uses the word (I am going to transliterate differently in order to be hyperprecise) `asai. The three consonant root from which it is derived is ` - s – h. `asah means maker. To add "my" to a word you add the ending "i" or "ai" (as in adding "ai" to "Adon" to get "Adonai'). The "ah" ending of some words often gets dropped when you add a suffix. Thus, `asai. There is nothing plural about this word and all 5 translations I have (NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, and Young's Literal) all correctly translate this word as "my maker" or "my Maker." I am curious (I do not mean this in the snide way that it will inevitably sound) as to where you heard it was plural. As a student of semitic languages, I am genuinely curious to learn more about this. My response to someone being "with" "sent by" "subject" to another was precisely the point of my Pentagon God argument. Since He could have manifested in some five-mode form, I see no problem with a one-person God manifesting as 3 (although I only see the need for 2 – the dove and the human (voice could be with the dove)) at the baptism in Matthew or asking to be honored by 3 titles in future baptisms in the Great Commission. For the sake of placing intellectual honesty over trying to explain everything away, I have to grant that you make a compelling point by raising Isaiah 18:16. I had never seen that before, and at the very least this verse compels me to at least consider the Trinity a serious possibility. Clearly you have saved the big gun for last. This verse is especially compelling for the following reasons: 1. It is in the Old Testament 2. It actually names 2 of the persons of the supposed Trinity instead of being a vague "us / our" to which the antecedent is unknown. 3. Isaiah is a validated prophet who spoke about things before they happened 4. This verse is in a clearly Messianic prophecy. 5. All of these elements are present together in one single sentence, the element that I found most missing in most other verses that supposedly support the Trinity. I still believe that Modalism is perfectly valid in this case as well. The human Jesus can say that He was sent by YHWH. That same human Jesus could ascend and his human form could sit next to the rest of YHWH just fine. I had to grant you that compelling verse. I often ask my Trinitarian friends at my church to show me a verse that meets those qualifications before I will even take it seriously. I'm surprised this verse had not yet been brought to my attention since I had been vocal for quite awhile about my skepticism of this issue.