The Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical

I'm happy that you didn't get upset! :) Summarizing my point of view: 1. I think the Trinity is a possible biblical interpretation, since it is based on Bible passages and on Jesus teachings. There is no contradictions to this concept in the Bible Itself to prove it wrong and to make it unbiblical. The prophets and the apostles understandings of God as One and not Trine (being Trine, Three in One) is not enough to make it unbiblical. If we went to analyse all the Bible explanations of God and His ways to interact with humans through an inflexible perspective, there are too many contradictions to make the Bible itself unbiblical... if this makes sense... So, I believe, as you also believe, for what I understood, that the Bible needs to be read very carefully, with an understanding of the circumstances of how it was written and with an open mind. Which may naturally lead to some different interpretations, which doesn't mean that those interpretations are all true, but that they were all based on the same texts. Some of this interpretations may be wrong and contradictory, but even if they are contradictory, which isn't the case of the Trinity, they would still be based on the Bible and even those might be consider biblical. 2. You're trying to use biblical arguments to support an unbiblical position, which I think is wrong and disproves itself from the beginning. I've already insinuated this in the previous rounds, though I've never expressed it like this. The Bible has several purposes. One is trying to improve human understanding of God, the topic we're debating would fit in this category, but the main goal, in my perspective, is to unify humanity. Is to end war, hunger and misery. Is to teach people how to love, how to forgive, how to be understandable and respectful with one another. Is to teach the grace of giving, the grace of friendships. To teach people to fight for this ideal, how Jesus did. An ideal of peace, of comprehension, of being able to be together and to love one another despite our differences. And your stance of, there is only one truth! Only I can be right! The others position is a perversion of mumbo jumbo! Goes completely against this ideal... And that's why I got so frustrated in the last round. You're just being an idiot (in the friendly sense of the word :) and it pissed me off! There is no other religion like Christianity that accentuates so much the importance of being together and unified, of love, of forgiving, of being open to everyone. And even so, is the most divided religion in the world, with hundreds of different churches and groups within, and responsible for so many deaths, suffering and war. And despite of all the examples given through out history, people continue to make the same mistakes! I know that I'm terrible quoting the Bible --' I don't have a deep knowledge of the Bible in that sense. But I believe that I understand it. And according to my understandings, the statement you're trying to make as the the way you're doing it, is just unbiblical. I won't tell you that you shouldn't debate and to try to improve your understandings about God, as to explain to others your believes... but there are biblical ways to do it ;) and you're just not doing it the right way. I've already made my point, but for a matter of respect I'm going to address your arguments presented in the last round! ;) "You may have thousands of experts on your side but I also have thousands on mine, so really it's a moot point." The guys on my side are not arguing that One Indivisible God is not biblical. It's not a moot point whatsoever! -.- One thing is defending one position, other is saying that the opponent position is a perversion and doesn't have any foundations to support itself. 1. "By this definition, anybody can interpret anything they want, then justify it by scripture and say its true." Not say it's true, but say it's biblical. If it makes sense and there are not enough Biblical arguments to make it contradictory... yeah! " To say that there are multiple truths is never taught in scripture. In the Bible its either Gods ONE way or your way." I hope I've already covered this problem... 2. "You're comparing apple and oranges. Doing what Christ instructs us to do is not "evolution"." I'm sorry if I didn't manage to explain myself again, but I don't know about a better way to put it... It is evolution, if you compare Jesus "instructs" with the previous believes. If everyone thought like you, nobody would have cared about Jesus, because Jesus teachings would be considered "evolutionary", in comparison to the previous ones. When Jesus came to Earth, the New Testament haven't been wrote yet, (as you know! but apparently I need to point this out..) therefore his "instructs" weren't part of the scripture yet. If people hadn't accepted change, "evolution" in regard of their believes, Jesus life would have been pointless. (as I concluded before.) The acceptance to evolution and to change is what made Christianity possible. 3. :) 4. I thought we were already over with this. According to my believes, which I thought we shared in this regard, God doesn't talk to people and explains them exactly what He is and how He "functions". People experience God, through many different ways and then try to rationalize and verbalize these experiences. I don't know how a Trine God feels different from an Unique One, but since in both cases is just One essence.. i guess it would feel the same. I don't understand the difficulty to understand that is just normal that there is no specific mention to this. 5. As I explained before, quoting the Bible is not my strength :p I understand the Trinity without needing to rely on Bible passages. But to make my points I thought it should be better to do so.. I might be wrong, but I ended up to learn some new stuff, so I don't regret it. 6. "a doctrine that was formulated by men 400 years after Christ was on earth?" Still hitting the same key. I don't get this argument or the point of it in this particular case... and I thought we were over it too. "We are debating on whether or not they are one person and co equal. I feel like you are misunderstanding exactly what the Trinity Doctrine preaches." I can't say that this made me sure that we were having some troubles to understand each other, because I already was sure of it. But it certainly proves it again. "Trinity: The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons." I've already posted this in a previous round, to try to make sure we were debating the same thing... But apparently it didn't work... According to trinity the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are NOT one person. "The three persons are DISTINCT, yet are ONE "substance, essence or nature"." I'm not yelling, just trying to emphasize these particular words. 7. :) "You however are saying it doesn't really matter what interpretation because the truth changes, the TRUE interpretation 2000 years ago is no longer true because of the evolution of the interpretation. The only person who can change anything is God, human evolution has nothing to do with the truth." I've never said that the truth changes --' The interpretations of humans regarding that truth changes... And I'm really glad and thankful that it does! :) Otherwise we would be stuck to an Old Testament ideology of a crazy God, that struggles to help a particular group of Jews, through really questionable and twisted ways, and fails to accomplish it. Or to a Egyptian or Greek polytheism, that you despise so much. I feel that we still have some issues to resolve :p I don't really care about the result of the debate, but if you come to read this and still have some interest left.. I ask you please!! to post an answer in the comment section or in my profile. It would be awesome!! :) Thanks again!! and sorry for my aggressive way to address to some particular subjects!