The Bible Teaches God is a Trinity

Con's reply to Gen 1:26 is so amusing to me I have to respond to it first: "To answer your question about Gen 1:26 gets to the heart of this debate. I don't know! That's the answer. That's my point. I believe that "I don't know" is the only honest answer to that question." The Bible does tell us who the "us" and the "our" is. John 1:1-3 says that "the Word was with God" in the beginning (the same period when man was made, the beginning: Matt 19:4, 8). The Word is a person (Rev 19:13) who was "with" God the Father in the beginning, who shared in creation all things. (John 1:3) This Word became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. (John 1:14-18) We know the Word is not the Father because he was "with" the Father. (John 1:1) Yet John 1:1 says "and the Word was God." So we have 2 person in the "us" and "our" at Gen 1:26, both of whom are God. Add the Holy Spirit and that makes 3 persons. (Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30) He too is God. (Acts 5:3-4) So the Bible tells us who created man, God; it also tells us about 3 person, each of whom is God, who also created all things; that tells us who the "us" is. So now you know. Let me also add that if God was only one person, he would not refer to himself in the plural as "us" and "our." (Gen 1:26) Modaism is not a Biblical answer because one person would not refer to himself in the plural as "us" and "our," nor can we appeal to angels, because we have no Biblical evidence to corroborate that (1) angels were involved in creation; (2) angels are made in God's image; (3) we are made in the image of angels; (4) angels are God. The Trinity brings harmony to God's word and removes contradiction. It is derived at my examining all the verses in contexts and seeing what each one teaches. A trinity inevitably arises from such a careful analysis. "If their understanding is different than yours, it really should cause you to question your ideas – especially since these are the people who lived through these experiences and the people who put together the Bible itself. These are not just certain folk. The beliefs of those who wrote the Bible (say, Moses) are relevant to what the Bible teaches." Should the fact that the Jews (including true believers) didn't believe in a Messiah that would die cause Christians to question their belief in the resurrection? For hundreds of years believers didn't believe the Messiah would have to die and they were wrong. So even if Moses didn't believe in the Trinity that wouldn't make the teaching false, it would simply make Moses mistaken. By the way, Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, and probably didn't write any part of the Bible. (see my debate: Moses did not write the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) http://www.debate.org...) King David and King Solomon were polygamists; they obviously believed it was ok cause they practiced most of their lives. These were true believers, and yet, what does the Bible teach about it? The law said of the king, "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself." (Deu 17:17) The king wasn't supposed to have more than one wife, yet, David and his son did so without repentance. Men can be wrong in their beliefs, that's why I don't rely on what they believed to structure my beliefs; I rely on what God's word says. Con believes the Trinity isn't spelled out in Scripture and thus is open to question, yet he believes Moses wrote books of the Bible which is nowhere stated in Scripture. He thinks that if the Trinity were true it would be stated more clearly in the Bible, which is tantamount telling God how he should have had his his word written. This is similar to the atheist who says that "if God existed he would have given us better proof, like make an annual appearance over the skies of New York and declare his holiness." Sure, we can think of much more clear ways God could have made the Trinity clear in the Bible, just as we could think of ways he could have more clearly shown his own existence, or other doctrines like if Sabbath keeping is binding, if Christians can drink alcohol, and many other teachings. But all we can do is accept what he says the way we have it and derive doctrine from that. The Trinity is not a matter of piecing together passages, but getting the true meaning of each passage. One verse tells us the Word is God. (John 1:1) Another says the Word was "with" God. (John 1:2) Another says there is only one God. (Isa 45:5) All three verses in context show that there are two persons involved, each is God, and since there is only one God, then they both must be part of that God. Modalism would allow the contradiction to stand. Asfor echod, I think my point on this is clear. "Behold, the people is one [echad]." (Gen 11:6) A single people existing as many persons, just as a single God exists as three persons. "The whole [echad] congregation." (Ezra 2:64) "One [echad] cluster of grapes." (Num 13:23) These are a few of the many examples of how echad is used to show the unity of oneness. How would the Hebrew be different if God had wanted to express absolute oneness? There is another Hebrew word, yachid, that is used to express the idea of absolute oneness. Examples of it are: "She was his only [yachid] child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter." (Jud 11:34) "Make thee mourning, as for an only [yachid] son." (Jer 6:26) Job 35:10 refers to God as the "Makers" of mankind. The word `sa (Makers) is a plural participle of `asah. What Unitarian would ever speak of God as his "Makers"? Only Trinitarians do this. At Gen 11:6-9, YHWH says "let US go down, and there confound their language." Who is the "us"? The only being that is said to actually scatter them and confound their language was YHWH himself; so in the absence of any other beings, we can safely say that YHWH is the "us." God is a plural being. Isa 48:16 has all three members of the Godhead distinguished, "and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me." Both God and the Holy Spirit sent him, but who is "him"? The contexts seems to suggest the "him" is also God. Three persons again. Nor did Con respond to Matt 28:19 which nicely ties the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in one name. But because of the word limit I'll have to excuse him just as I hope he'll excuse me for not replying to an of his points I might have missed. I don't believe Con has adequately responded to the points I raised against modalism. For example, how can the Son be "with" the Father in heaven? (John 17:3; Rev 3:21) "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42) The second person pronoun "he" means "another person," not the same person in a different from; so the "he" that sent Jesus must be another person. The Father and the Son are clearly distinguished. How can Jesus sit at the Father's right hand if he is the Father in the flesh? (Acts 2:31-36) There would be no Father to sit "next" to! I is obvious to any reader that the Father and the Son are two separate persons. Con says an omnipresent God could become 5 people and still be one person. Well, this debate isn't about what God "could" do, but what does Scripture say he "did" do. And the Bible says it was "the Word" who became flesh in the person of Jesus, not the Father. (John 1:1-3, 14) It also says this word was "with" the Father, indicated a separate person from the Father. So I know the one being baptized in Matthew 3 (the Word/Jesus) is a separate person from the Father in heaven whose voice was heard.