The Trinity is Biblical

If Jesus can be both the Son of man (Matt 9:6) and man (1 Tim 2:5) at the same time, why can't he also be the Son of God, and God at the same time? Son of man means his human nature, Son of God his divine nature. No contradiction here. John 20:31 says it is the signs (miracles) of Jesus that are written to prove that he is the Son of God, not Thomas' confession at John 20:28. Also, you say Thomas could not have called Jesus "my God" because of some perceived contradiction in your mind, but I go by what the Bible says. It doesn't say "Thomas said to him, my Lord, and then looked up to heaven and said to God, my God;" no, it says Thomas said UNTO HIM, to Jesus, therefore, the whole sentence is addressed to him. No third party is mentioned in his address. "since the clear meaning of "Son of God" is "one who is NOT God", False! You define a word by what it "MEANS," not by what it "DOES NOT MEAN." Someone reading your definition would still not know what Son of God means. Show me that definition in a dictionary, or a verse in the Bible saying "the Son of God is NOT God." Just as a son is no less human than his father, Jesus is no less God than his Father (Phil 2:6-7; John 14:9 & Isa 46:9), it means he has his Father' nature. (John 5:18) My opponent goes on to claim that the term "el Gibbor" used at Isaiah 9:6 is also used of men at Ezekiel 32:21 and therefore it is not a divine title, but this is a false claim. Ezekiel 32:21 uses the word gibborim, not eley gibborim which is the plural form of El Gibbor. The two words el and Gibbor are not put together in this verse; but what is more, I have given my opponent numerous verses showing that that there is one, and only one God in all of existence. (Deu 4:35; Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Mal 2:10; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; Jam 2:19) It also says that there is only one true God. (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20) This means that all other gods are false. So even if Ezekiel 32:21 called them gods, they would have to be false gods, because there cannot be more than one true God! So, his so-called gods are flase, but is Jesus? None can deny that Isaiah 9:6 is a reference to the Son, so I have asked before and am asking again, is Jesus a true god or a false god? My opponent is yet to answer this question. He was the one who laid out in the terms of this debate that the unclear texts should be understood in light of the clear ones. "I am the first, and I am the last, and BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD." (Isa 44:6) It doesn't get clearer than that! "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa 43:10) "Is there a God besides me? Yea, there is no God; I KNOW NOT ANY." (Isa 44:8) "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is NO GOD BESIDE ME." (Isa 45:5) "There is NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME; a just God and a Savior; THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME." (Isa 45:21) These passages are very clear that there is only ONE God , and in light of these "clearer passages," any other gods mentioned in scripture must be false! He flies in the face of these "clearer passages" when he claims there are other gods. He also claims el Gibbor is not a divine title, but it is used as a divine title for Yahweh at Isaiah 10:20-21 and Jeremiah 32:18. He appeals then to Ezekiel 31:11 as proof that mere men can be gods, but this was talking about the "heathen" (unblievers), obvious false gods again. He turns to Exodus 21:6 where elohim is mistranslated "judges" but this is a reference to God, not men. Then he claims no verse has Jesus as Creator. Hebrews 1:8-10 does. He also admits regarding Col 1:15 "the most any of these passages could prove is that Jesus was a preexistent being who was somehow involved in creation." But God declares he crfeated ALONE, BY HIMSELF (Isa 44:24), so Jesus could only be involved in creation if he was God, otherwise, God had help and was lying. Col 2:16 "For by him were all things created, THAT ARE IN HEAVEN, and THAT ARE IN EARTH," that would include the rocks and trees contrary to your claim. You say the "us" and "our" (Gen 1:26) is God talking to angels? Where in the Bible are angels involved in creation? I have shown you where Scripture reveals the Father as creator (Isa 64:8), and the Son (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 8-10), and the Holy Spirit. (Ps 104:30; Job 26:13; 33:4) Only these 3 are said to take part in creating the world, not the angels. I know who the "us" is from Scripture, you get it from SPECULATION. If you knew who the "us" was, you wouldn't need the other possibility of "a plural of majesty." So God was speaking to "the plural of majesty"? Is that a person? And where does the Bible mention this plural of majesty? I'm getting who the "us" is from Scripture, not from the NET footnotes; I suggest you do the same. Peter and the Devil both being called Satan doesn't make them the same being because Scripture does not say there is ONLY ONE Satan; but Yahweh does claim to be the ONLY Savior (Isa 43:11), so the two cases are not parallel. So if there is ONLY ONE Savior, and if Jesus is the Savior, then he has to be that one Savior (Acts 4:10), Yahweh. I never argued that just because the same thing is said about two people that makes them the same being, what I did claim is because Jesus does things that ONLY God can do, that he is God; like read hearts: "For thou (God), even thou ONLY, knowest the hearts of all the children of men." (1 Kings 8:39) Here it says God is the only one who can know or read the heart, which is the very thing Jesus does in Mark 2:6-8 and John 2:24-25. I also claim that certain things true of Jesus are true ONLY of God: "there is NO SALVATION IN ANYONE ELSE." (Acts 4:12) Sometimes words have more than one meaning. "Yasha" does not mean "Savior" in Neh 9:27 or Obad 1:21; it refers to "deliverer" in times of war. Most if not all translations do not render the word as "Saviour" in these verses. These men had no power to truly bring us salvation! But Jesus is called Savior in the ULTIMATE sense on par with Yahweh. (Acts 4:12) "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord." (Zec 4:6) Here the Holy Spirit is distinguished from power, so no, the Holy Spirit is not God' power. "The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them…So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto Seleucia." (Acts 13:2-4) A non-living force could not verbally speak as the Holy Spirit does here, nor send them out, so the Holy Spirit is a person. Ananias "lied" to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4), you cannot lie to a force. The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 5:30), vexed (Isa 63:10), and Jesus speaks of him as a person in John 16:7-15: "I will send him unto you," "he will reprove the world of sin," "he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak." Obvious references to a person. The Holy Spirit is not Jesus because Jesus says "I will send him to you." (John 16:7) Jesus wasn't sending himself was he? "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you." This makes no sense if the Holy Spirit is Jesus. Neither is he the Father, otherwise Matthew 28:19 would mean to be "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Father," a statement neither logical nor likely. The Father sends out the Holy Spirit (Ps 104:30), showing that the himself is not the Holy Spirit The fact that ezs777 lists a number of possibilities for the identity of the Holy Spirit suggests that he is unsure of who or what the Holy Spirit is. This is a bad position to be in because it is the Holy Spirit who guides Christians into all the truth (John 16:13), and if he doesn't even know for sure who he is, how then can he submit to his guidance? If he were guiding ezs777 into all the truth, would he not at least know who he is? Don't waste my word space refuting possibilities you don't even believe in; unless, you don't even know the Holy Spirit at all.