The Trinity is a true doctrine of the Bible

Now that we're all here, let's continue this. My opponent admits that the resolution does not accurately portray his intent with this debate, that I am correct that he should have worded the debate differently. I will leave judging this point to the voters, and I will not bring it up again except as a reminder in the final round. I accept that the Athanasian creed is not the only way to define Trinity, even though it was pretty much where the church officially adopts a Trinity doctrine. However, I don't merely accept my opponent's definition. There are several problems with it. For instance, what is even meant by different persons having the same "essence," and how do we go about determining this? What attributes must Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit have to qualify as having the "essence" of God, and why should these similarities be enough to call each person the same being? My opponent brings up John 5:18, among other verses. This verse is alleged to show us that "Son of God" means "Equal to God." First I will point out that being equals in that sense does not mean being equivalent to the same thing. Many people are equal to me in regards to athletic ability, but that doesn't mean we're the same entity. Second, I would like to point out that this verse contradicts the Trinity doctrine. According to the Trinity doctrine, Jesus is the son of THE FATHER, not the son of God. Jesus and the Father are both elements of God. To say that Jesus is the Son of God indicates that Jesus is not part of that same God. My opponent brings up Colossians 2:9 again, but I have already explained this verse by looking at the context. My opponent makes a lot of claims without substantiating them. "All the scriptures teach X" or "According to the rest of the scriptures" without telling us what those scriptures are. He also asserts that one of his verses means something "in the Greek," but I doubt he, I, nor the majority of readers have the ability to read the Greek version. While it's almost acceptable that he fails to give us at least links to the verses he quotes, it's simply unthinkable that he would reference a source none of us can even check on if we make the effort to (not that we should have to go out of our way to hunt down the sources in the first place). = My opponent finally tries to argue that the Holy Spirit is God. Acts 5:3-4 (Young's Literal) Peter said, `Ananias, wherefore did the Adversary fill thy heart, for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back of the price of the place? While it remained, did it not remain thine? and having been sold, in thy authority was it not? why [is] it that thou didst put in thy heart this thing? thou didst not lie to men, but to God; My opponent alleges that this equates God and the Holy Spirit. It does no such thing. It simply equates lying to the holy spirit with lying to God. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is a conduit through which God can be contacted? Perhaps God simply has access to anything you tell the Holy Spirit. This verse does not necessitate that the Holy Spirit is God. 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 (YLT) And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty; and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. This may not even mention the Holy Spirit. However, even if it is referring to the holy spirit, saying that it is Lord does not mean that there are no other lords. And another interesting possibility has come to my mind - perhaps the Holy spirit isn't a person in its own right at all - perhaps it is simply the spirit of Jesus or of the Father. John 16:12-15 I have yet many things to say to you, but ye are not able to bear [them] now; and when He may come -- the Spirit of truth -- He will guide you to all the truth, for He will not speak from Himself, but as many things as He will hear He will speak, and the coming things He will tell you; He will glorify me, because of mine He will take, and will tell to you. All things, as many as the Father hath, are mine; because of this I said, That of mine He will take, and will tell to you; This verse does not indicate, as my opponent suggests, that the Holy spirit is a separate person with its own consciousness and will. Matthew 28:19 (YLT) having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, My opponent mistakenly believes that this verse indicates that each of the three entities share the same name. First, if that was true, baptisms would be made "in the name of God" and that would be it, instead of actually using each of the three names. Second, even if they share the same name, that does not mean they are the same being. Third, an understanding of Greek syntax would be helpful here. In many languages, "in the names of the father, of the son, and of the holy spirit" would use singular due to the fact that each of the individual phrases demands a singular. 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 (NIV) There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. My opponent suggests that the above verse "shows that The Spirit is equal to The Father and The Son, and that The Spirit has a will and a mind of His own." This is incorrect. The Father and the Son are not mentioned in this passage, the Spirit is not necessarily the Holy Spirit (perhaps it is the spirit of the Father - who being nonphysical, would just be a spirit). It's obvious that there are multiple spirits here at work, since "distinguishing between spirits" is one of the gifts some people get. With that, I will allow my opponent to make his closing statements. I wish him well in that endeavor.