The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural.

While my opponent recognizes that John 1:1a allows for “the beginning” to be as far back as possible, he does not seem to understand that the Greek demands it. It is not just a “possible interpretation,” the Greek used in that verse demands the understanding I provided and does not allow for another.He goes on to try and refute John 1:1 as a whole by saying that it is translated differently in some Bibles. He uses the example of the JST. While I acknowledge that my opponent is a Mormon, he should be aware the Joseph Smith did not know Koine Greek (which is required in order to translate John 1:1) or even Biblical Hebrew. The LDS Church itself readily admits that Smith’s work was a revision using prophecy, not a translation from the original languages. And, as was agreed upon before engaging in this debate, we are only using the Holy Bible and no other scriptures. However, even the LDS Church does not recognize Smith’s “translation” of John 1:1 as canon. The only passages from his “translation” that are canonized are the ones found in the Pearl of Great Price. I would like to reiterate that everyone who accepts the doctrine of the trinity is in agreement, regardless of which Bible translation, denomination, or sect. The only disagreement is among those who reject the doctrine of the trinity.My opponent moves on from John 1:1 and states that John 20:37 (which is not even a real passage in the Bible, John 20 only has 31 verses) and Romans 9:5 are not referring to Jesus as God. He says this because “the two [Jesus and His Father] are combined in one substance.” I am not terribly sure what this is supposed to mean, as my opponent did not flesh out his thought on this any further. I would need clarification as well as some Scriptural support for this theory. It seems like he is trying to say that the Son and the Father are the same person, which would not make sense given that throughout the rest of the round he consistently tries to separate them in a vain effort to refute the doctrine of the trinity. He tries to dismiss 1 John 5:20 using the same argument.After this confusing attempt to claim that Romans 9:5, which explicitly refers to Jesus as the “God over all,” is not speaking of Jesus as God, my opponent tries to say that Hebrews 1:3 disproves the doctrine of the trinity. He makes this claim because the passage distinguishes between the Father and the Son. This does not disprove the doctrine of the trinity. The definition of the trinity that was agreed upon for this debate states that the one being of God “is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.” In my initial arguments, I fleshed this out and made it rather clear that none of the three persons are ever identified as the other. He makes this same mistake when he tries to dismiss Revelation 5:13, 14.He then tries to dismiss Acts 5:3 in a way that I cannot quite understand. I need clarification. Regarding 2 Corinthians 3, the verse I referenced in round two was verse seventeen.Now, let’s dissect my opponent’s arguments against my conclusion in round two. He states that I provided no passages for describing the Gospel as Trinitarian. This is true, but I primarily did this because none of the things mentioned in my explanation are contested among Christians. All Christians agree that the work of salvation begins with the decree of the Father. All Christians agree that salvation is accomplished in the work of the Son. All Christians agree that Christ is now a mediator at the right hand of the Father and is the head of the Church. And, finally, all Christians agree that the Spirit works within believers. So, while I can provide Scriptural citations, I see no real purpose when none of those things are contested.In concluding, my opponent tried to disprove the trinity by using Matthew 3:16, 17. Yet he does the exact opposite. He again is mistaken in the definition of the trinity, which I have already addressed. However, Matthew 3:16, 17 displays the triune formula. I just did not include it in my list of passages in the second round, but it could most certainly be added to it.