The Bible Teaches God is a Trinity

I plainly said in my opening paragraph of round 3, "But true believers among them would have known God is triune." But the debate is on what the Bible teaches, not what certain people believed. For example, the disciples of Jesus didn't believe in his resurrection till after it occurred. They didn't even believe the Messiah was supposed to die. (Matt 24:1-11; 16:21-22; Luke 24:19-26) Does that mean that the Old Testament didn't prophesy the Messiah's death and resurrection just because "true believers" had no prior believe in a dying or rising Messiah? No. His death and resurrection is proclaimed in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 16:10. So what true Christians "grasp" and what the Bible teaches, might not be synonymous at all times and in all cases; that's why the question is irrelevant. "my question is concerning whether or not there is any evidence that they understood YHWH to be Triune." Abraham address 3 men as "my Lord" (sing) and not "my Lords" (plural). (Gen 18:1-3) The writer of Genesis (who's obviously another true believer) says it was the Lord [YHWH] who appeared to Abraham, yet say he saw 3 men; and in the Hebrew, all 3 men are called YHWH. (Gen 19:18; 18:22, 1-3) Just an example; but like I said, I don't have to prove that they believed this to win this debate; only that Scriptures teaches the doctrine. Deu 6:4 is teaching that God is one YHWH, that is what it says; it is not saying that God is one "person." The Shema is a declaration of monotheism, which itself doesn't disagree with the Trinity doctrine which also affirms the existence of only one God; so this in no way refutes the Trinity. Echod is often used for a composite group such as "one" cluster of grapes. Con's objection seems to be that the word "one" must mean a single entity, but I can agree with that and yet believe in the Trinity inasmuch as the omnipresent God is (in spirit) a single entity. Having 3 centers of consciousness (3 minds), in no ways stops God from being a single being or entity. So I don't see this as refuting the Trinity. Would Deu 6:4 cause people to assume God is only one person? Maybe; it could. It has cause Jehovah's Witnesses to do so. But John 14:28 also causes them to think Jesus isn't God, when Scripture plainly says he is at John 20:28-29. Is it misleading therefore on God's part? Well, take for example Luke 4:26, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Just as with the word echod, there are no antecedents to show the word "hate" means anything other than "hate," which is he opposite of love! Was this misleading on Jesus part? Jesus himself said he came to put a sword, and to set a man against those in his own house. (Matt 10:34-35) Many people have interpreted this to mean Jesus was mad, or that he contradicted himself, was a false teacher, etc. These verses are no less "misleading" than Deu 6:4. We can't argue against a doctrine on the basis of how "some" people "might" interpret them. But that is what Con is doing. It would also be good for him to remember people interpret things in the context of their prior theology. Many people don't even believe that God is a person at all. Some people don't define "Spirit" to mean "person," and since God is Spirit (John 4:24), they look at Deu 6:4 differently. I don't hold that view, but people interpret things based on their own theology. So Con is on shaky ground when he tries to get into people's heads and ask "if" they would understand the word "one" in such and such a way. That's why I'm dealing with if the Bible teaches the Trinity, as opposed to if certain folk would interpret a verse as I do. "Regarding the Hosea 11:1 reference, the word "Israel" is a singular word, and thus rates a singular pronoun." To say "I loved them" of Israel would be grammatically incorrect." And yet it goes on to use a plural pronoun for Israel in verse 2, "As they called them [plural], so they [plural] went from them; they [plural] sacrificed to Balaam." So here we have a singular Israel being referred to in both the singular "he," and the plural "they." So much for Con's grammatical rule. So too, God (Elohim, plural) can denote a composite group just as Israel does, and be referred to in the singular "echod." Let me repeat that what makes a view legitimate is the evidence for it, not if it is mainstream or in the minority! He says there is no need to invoke a separation of persons in Matthew 3. So was it the Holy Spirit being baptized? If not, it was another person. But there is no Bible verse saying Jesus is the Holy Spirit and Jesus even distinguishes himself from the Holy Spirit. (Matt 12:31-32) Was it Jesus coming down in the form of a dove? If not, it was someone else. The voice from heaven said "This is my son, the beloved, in whom I am well please;" so was this Jesus saying that he was his own Son? That he was please with himself? The separation is obvious. What, I ask, is baptism? It's a symbol of one's dedication to God; so was Jesus dedicating himself to himself? Obviously not, for he said "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38) He dedicated his life to do another person's will. Strange how Con argues that if the Trinity is true, that the word echod at Deu 6:4 would be misleading; yet, does he not think that if Jesus were the Father in the flesh, that the voice from heaven saying "this is my Son," would be misleading too? The disciples would never guess these were not 2 separate persons from that event! Heb 1:1-2 says it was by "the Son" that God made the worlds. So Jesus was the Son of the Father even before his human conception in Mary's womb. 1 John 4:9-11 has the Father sending his Son "into" the world, showing that he was the Son even before he entered the world. That makes Con's objection about the Holy Spirit being Jesus' Father mute. "Clearly, Jesus claims to have been the Creator." "And God said, Let US [plural] make man in OUR [plural] image." (Gen 1:26) If God is not more than one person, then to whom was God talking? If Con claims he was talking to the angels, he needs to back this up with Scripture. No where does the Bible say we are made in the image of angels, nor does it say that angels are made in the image of God. What's more, there are only 3 persons the Bible identifies as sharing in creation. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I gave the Scriptures proving this in round 2 where I said "Yet the Bible reveals the Father as Creator (Mal 2:10), as well as the Son (John 1:1-3, 10; Col 1;16-18) and the Holy Spirit. (Job 26:13; 33:4; Ps 104:30)." So the "us" and the "our" must be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; yet, we are made only in God's image and no one else. This is airtight proof that God is a plural being, inasmuch as he refers to himself in the plural, and the Hebrew word itself for God in Gen 1:26 is also plural. So tell us, Con, who is the "us" and the "our" at Gen 1:26? "Now, if Jesus claims to be Creator that means He is YHWH. But that also means that He was not merely "with" the Creator." I have shown he was "with" the Father in John 17:5; Rev 3:21 and other places. "He was also a human and thus in that role He had to submit to His Father – YHWH" If God is only one person, and that one person was Jesus, then Jesus would have no Father. He wouldn't need to refer to the Father separately because if the Father became flesh he would still be the Father, just as he didn't stop being God when he became a man. Matt 28:19 "in the name [sing] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." One name, 3 persons. Who else can bears God's name but God? But Con wants God to say things the way he wants, and that won't happen. God's word can't contradict itself, so if the passages combined lead to a Trinity; we must accept it as Biblical.