A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity

<< Redirection 1) As to the subjective truth of the Bible…. I will point out all writings and statements can be made subjective by the observer - For example: Atheists claim our founding fathers were deists rather than Christians. Though this is clearly untrue any statement can be taken out of context. Additional example of a theologians statements debated about; Calvinists point to statements from St. Augustine as a theologian that supports the Calvinist view of Predestination. St. Augustine was speaking of predestination in the realm of not choosing your parents, your country, your timeline, your gender etc… Calvinists view these statements as supporting irresistible grace, everyone else in the church does not. - However, clearly all things should be read for the author's intent and remain in the context of those statements and in view of the fullness of their life and Isagogics. - For readers that may not know, Isagogics is the historical occurrences and the persons life etc. . that is read "into" the work or scripture to bring clarity to the text. Redirection 2) Concerning History written by the victors. Even if it is true that the victors write history are you suggesting that the Church Fathers were inaccurate in their recordings of History? I would need to see evidence for this as 95% of Christianity today confirms the cannons of the Council and its Creed. Additionally "rewriting" history is not always the case or successful as is the case with Emperor Constantius, the Emperor after Constantine and his council and a zealous Arian, tried to erase parts of the Bible and destroy Athanasius and supporters to give dominion to Arianism. He was unsuccessful and the church still did then and does today support a Triune God. . http://www.newadvent.org... Clearly, of the two, I would stand with the Council rather than such an avid Emperor trying to change the Bible to eradicate a competing viewpoint. Sounds like the viewpoint supported by the enemy rather than God. "That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text (scripture) out of as many copies as fell into his hands. " John Wesleys 1775 Cork Sermon (. http://www.wbbm.org...) Redirection 3) Concerning my opponents understanding of the Nicean Council and history– There were only at the start, 5 bishops supporting Arianism, at the end of the discussion there were only 2 dissenting opinions, when the other 3 understood what was clearly being claimed. There were 318 Bishops in attendance. By any definition the Trinitarian view stands at near unanimous. 316-2 in favor of the Triune nature of God. The anethamization of the Arian viewpoint was so profound that the document that was read to them to explain the Arian viewpoint was "torn to pieces". It was not the teaching that was handed down to 99.99485% of the church leadership. . http://www.newadvent.org... . http://www.columbia.edu... As for theologians pre Nicea, being superior to the affirmed creed, why exactly would that be the case? Clearly such an opposing belief as Jesus Christ less than God was not preeminent at 325 AD . The doubts on the Holy Spirit did not exist until 381 otherwise they would have addressed them at the Council as well. Redirection 4) Concerning burden of proof. The resolution did NOT state "the most likely view given of God in the bible was the Trinity" It stated one vs. one. "A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity I have no problem with the GK Chesterton quote and we can take other divine nature assertions, one vs. one in separate debates. The burden of proof is shared and limited to two viewpoints. Everything else stated by my opponent is also up for grabs whether it should stand in the light of accuracy. Due to the limited characters I will get on topic. <<>> This argument will be wholly from scripture, as it does indeed stand authoritative above all other works. We both will need to show that our interpretation is superior when either party casts that interpretation in doubt. << Imagine taking a star, like our own sun, reaching your hand into that star and plucking out an equal piece of that star…. What do you have? Another star. It is of the exact same essence. It is all the same basic elements. Now imagine reaching your hand into both stars, one at a time and plucking out an equal piece of each and combining those two pieces. What do you have again? Another star right? All three stars are made of the same essence. They are now three different stars but they are all the same star stuff. They are equally stars of the exact same essence. They are consubstantial (all of the same substance), but three different things. Above is the historical and biblical concept of Begotten and Proceeding. This is a philosophers explanatory concept. <<< Triune In the Bible How is this taught in the bible? Genesis Ch 1: 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. " 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Now most would point that clearly a plurality of some form as God (Elohim the plural form of El/God) is discussing things with himself, the question would be what was that form/image/likeness as described in the bible? We look to the description right after: I will summarize due to my now extremely limited characters: God formed Adam from the dust… Then he formed Eve from the dust… Wait… no, that is not how he did it. He took a piece from Adam and formed an entirely whole woman. Eve was begotten of the same "stuff" as Adam. She was not created but begotten. She is equally the same stuff as Adam. Then the husband and wife come together as "one" (Echad same as the "Shema") and another entity in equal essence proceeds from that union. God uses the family structure and His creating act to describe His nature. God made us in His image. "27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. " Both male, female and child were made to be the image of God, the representation of the nature of God. Three persons, of the same essence, consubstantial. God is also consubstantial of the same essence and that essence is eternal, omni-excellent. .. etc. This of course is an explanatory shadow revealing the truth of God, like the lamb shadowing Jesus's sacrifice. Saint Gregory taught this concept during the middle 300's. . http://www.newadvent.org... Summary: We do see a concept clearly pointed to by God in the Genesis account - consubstantial beings sharing Essence but not personhood. The New Testament never explains the Triune concept as the authors already had scripture they consistently pointed to describe the Triune Nature of God. We also see Early Church Fathers understood this concept and taught the same concept. This is clearly a traditional teaching and an easy to understand one. Adam was first (Adam created God is uncreated) – Eve is begotten from the stuff of Adam, and children proceed from that unity also being "of" the same stuff. The Triune Nature of God is quite describable and easily to understand in a daily frame of reference