A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity

I had hoped that by observing the fickle nature of history, we could limit this debate to bible commentary and theology. But because my opponent tried to go the "Everybody has always been Trinitarian" road, I have to use the majority of my characters to annihilate this argument. Once he has conceded that Arianism was a front runner for Orthodoxy once upon a time, then we can both focus more on the Bible and Theology. But for now... 1) Arianism was more popular than my opponent realizes. A) Orthodoxy had not been established nor was a Trinitarian model dominant. “ Arianism seemed at the worst one extreme and drastic but not unacceptable option among many. The limits of orthodoxy at the beginning of the fourth century, though more definite than they had been a century earlier, were still loose and unclear. The subject brought to the fore by Arius was one upon which no consensus had ye been reached among the Church’s teachers....No organ for defining universally accepted dogma had yet been devised. And when it very soon was devised by the ingenuity of Constantine, the General Council served at first only to make darkness darker.” (Hanson, Pg 145) B) Council of Nicaea had more than merely 2 dissenters. “ All we can say is that the number of bishops at the Council of Nicaea probably fell between 250 and 300. The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way...It is likely that the great majority of Western bishops did not know what all the fuss created by the Arian Controversy was about, and saw no strong reason to make a long journey to a Greek-speaking city for so uncertain a purpose” (Hanson, pg 156) [The Council of Nicaea] “Was attended by about one sixth of all the bishops in the empire...Eighteen bishops opposed the creed.” (http://www.scribd.com...) C) A brief history of the Arian Controversy demonstrates Arian support until Emperror Theodosius mandated Trinitarianism by imperial decree. Council of Nicaea (325AD) -Arian's views discussed, condemned by Alexander. Council is non unanimous but produces Nicene Creed an intentional anti-Arian formula. [In 341AD] Two Arian councils are held in Antioch. Of the 97 bishops present, none are from the West and most are hostile to Athanasius. A formal Arian creed is written” (ibid) Synod of Tyre and Jerusalem (335AD)- Vindicates Arian condemns Athanasius. “Led by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Pronouncement of the Synod of Tyre and Jerusalem restores Arius and his colleagues into communion with the Church.” (ibid) “Constantine agrees with Eusebius and the council's findings and exiles Athanasius to Trier” (ibid) Council of Antioch I (338AD)- Council affirms prior decision, formally deposes Athanasius and orders his Exile. Council of Antioch II and III (341AD)- Formal Arian creeds written defiant of Council of Nicaea, which is seen as non-binding since so few bishops were present. Eastern bishops lean Arian, West does not. Council of Sardica (343AD)- Attempt at unity between East and West, fails horribly. East is seen as entirely Arian. East and West pen condemnatory theses against one another. Council of Antioch IV (344AD)- Council writes Arian addendum to Arian Creed Council of Milan (345AD)- Arian confessions reviewed and vindicated. Council of Milan II (347AD)- “The upshot of the proceedings was that almost everybody present acquiesced in the Emperor's demands,condemned Athanasius, and probably also signed some formula which was not openly Arian but was patient of an Arian interpretation” (Hanson, pg 334) Council of Sirmium II (351AD)- Sixth Arian confession adopted. Council of Arles (353AD)- Athanasius condemned Council of Sirmium III (357AD)- Seventh Arian confession composed, Western Bishops nearly strike compromise with Eastern Arian bishops by leaning Arian themselves. “The Second Creed of Sirmium of 357 constituted a landmark...This is an Arian creed” (Hanson pg 347) Council of Ancyra (358AD)- Under the leadership of Basil, a Pro-Nicene statement is released which attacks Arianism. Council of Sirmium IV (359AD)- A compromise formula is proposed in recognition of unending dispute. Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia (359AD)- Emperror Constans commands a compromise between East (Arian) and West (Athanasian) bishops. A semi-arian creed is constructed. Post Synod Council (360AD)- Reviewed the Synods Semi-Arian conclusions. Nicene conclusions condemned completely. 20 years later, Jerome writes that “the world awoke with a groan to find itself Arian.” Council of Antioch V (361AD)- Eleventh Arian Confession is written, the produced Creed is strongly Arian. Synod is Alexandria (361AD)- Athanasians and Cappodocians reach agreement on God and Jesus' common substance, Athanasius paves way to later acceptance of Nicene Creed by including Holy Spirit. Emperor Theodosius (380AD)- Faced with a threatened and disunited Empire, Trinitarianism is decided as official church doctrine by imperial decree. The Trinity becomes the official teaching of the church by order of the state. Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381AD)- Theodosius requires bishops to officially affirm Nicene Creed with Holy Spirit addendum. CONCLUSION: Arianism managed to divide the entire Empire through 4 separate Emperors and nearly 70 years. At the very least it was a powerful candidate for orthodoxy, at the very best it was the dominant theory overthrown by a theological coup d'etat. 2) Star Example My opponent is plainly wrong first off. If you remove some of the matter within a star you don't have another star, you have some of its component matter. Just as if you remove my lung you don't have another me. We are more than the sum of our parts, and our parts do not contain our totality. Yes both the original star and the removed object are made of the same stuff, but everything in the universe is made of that stuff. Earth and you and I are made of star dust, that's where all matter is created. By his example we are all con substantial with the Father. 3) Genesis Interpretation Again this is off base. First many theologians believe that when God used “us” He may have been referring to the Angelic beings. Second Arians once argued that the Father was speaking to the Son, who was the first created thing in the universe, but a creature, not God. This passage does not disallow for this possibility. Therefore it is no more likely Trinitarian than it is Arian. A) Adam-Eve Comparison If my opponent uses Adam and Eve as his analogy, and really more than that, his lynchpin for interpreting the “we” as a Trinity, he is condemning his whole case. Adam and Eve are not the same entity. Arguing that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all made of the same “stuff” or popped out of one another does not make the case for their composite unity. By this logic Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are analogous to the God-Head. This doesn't even represent an Orthodox view of the Trinity, as it would allow for even a Mormon concept of God (three persons made of the same “God stuff”) to fit comfortably within its framework. I suggest he back peddle and quickly. 3) Suggestion for Round 3 Concede the historical point. All this does is admit that there was a contoversy, by the fact that you proposed this debate it suggests the issue was big enough to echo through the millenia and Arianism wasn't small. Then let's talk bible for the rest of this debate. Refrerences: Hanson, R.P.C. (2007), The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversies 318-381. (From the back cover: “Hanson's work on the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century combines meticulous and thorough scholarship with lucid prose. It is the most comprehensive account of the subject in modern English scholarship.”)