The Trinity is Biblical

Pro's objection to my argument about singular pronouns only being used of singular persons has led me to strengthen my previous argument. Pro is right in saying that Israel, Ephraim, and Jerusalem are all referred to by singular personal pronouns, and that this invalidates my previous argument. However, one of the fundamental principles of Biblical interpretation is that all passages written using figurative language (e.g., personification, idioms, and figures of speech) are not to be interpreted the same way as passages written in literal language. Yahweh is clearly personifying these groups in these passages; therefore, they are exempt from the rule that singular pronouns only refer to single persons. My revised argument is that: singular personal pronouns are only used of single persons, EXCEPT in cases where figurative language is used; therefore, since the passages in which Yahweh speaks and is spoken of using singular personal pronouns do not contain figurative language, those passages are saying that Yahweh is a single person. As far as Pro's use of Luke 8:27-33, that passage is not clearly stating that Legion was speaking of the whole group of demons with the singular pronoun "I"; in fact, the passage says that THE MAN who was possessed cried out to Jesus, and Jesus asked THE MAN what his name was, and HE responded "Legion: because many devils were entered into him" (verse 30 KJV); so THE MAN called himself "Legion" because many devils were in him, and it was not one demon speaking for multiple demons. After this, the demons begin to talk to Jesus, and THEY ask him to send THEM into a nearby heard of swine; there is a clear shift in subject in this passage from THE MAN who was healed by Jesus, to the DEVILS, who were being cast out. Although this passage could be used to prove Pro's claim (verses in the Bible can be used to prove many untrue things), there is nothing in the text that demands this interpretation. One verse is a flimsy basis for a doctrine anyway, especially when that verse has potential ambiguity. Therefore, Pro's objection to my previous argument is valid, but his use of Luke 8:27-33 to support his critique is weak. Pro says that "Jesus is no less God than his Father . . . [which] means he has his Father's nature". Here Pro is defining "God" as "divine nature"; however in the passages he cites two paragraphs later as evidence that there is only one God, that definition wouldn't work. For example: "I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is no DIVINE NATURE" (Isa. 44:6), or "There is no DIVINE NATURE else beside me; a just DIVINE NATURE and a Savior" (Isa. 45:21). If Pro defines "God" in these verses as "divine nature" he has a problem, because he will have to explain how a divine nature can be a "he", how a divine nature can be just, and how God's divine nature can be a separate person from him. The only way that Pro can define "God" in these verses and make them at least somewhat intelligible is if he defines "God" as "Trinity"; however, if he does this, then he has committed the fallacy of equivocation with the term "God" in his argument, by giving it two different definitions, thus making his argument invalid. This should illustrate Pro's fallacy clearly: Premise 1: There is one God (Trinity) Premise 2: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God (Divine Nature) Conclusion: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one God (Trinity) The definition of "God" in premise 1 must be "Trinity"; it cannot be "divine nature", because that would cause the verses above cited to make absurd claims. The second definition of "God" must be "divine nature", because otherwise it would have to say that the three persons were each the Trinity, and that is patently false (even in Pro's argument); therefore, Premises 1 and 2 must have those two different meanings, but if they do, then that means that this argument is automatically invalid, because it uses the fallacy of equivocation. So, Pro is caught on the horns of a dilemma; he either has to equivocate his definition of "God" in his argumentation process (which makes his argument invalid) or to make a valid argument, he has to define "God" in an unbiblical way (i.e., as "divine nature"), resulting in a false premise, and thus an unsound argument; so Pro has a choice between an invalid argument and an unsound argument, and since these are his only two possible ways of arguing for the Trinity, and neither kind of argument can prove anything, this doctrine must be false. Pro's argument against my use of "yasha" is weak; he claims that the word SHOULD be translated "deliverers", but on whose authority? It is the exact same word in both passages, so there is no reason why it should not be translated the same in both instances; if you like, Isaiah 43:11 can read like this "besides me there is no Deliverer"; it has the same meaning. What exactly is the difference between a savior and a deliverer anyway? The fallacy in Pro's treatment of this verse is that he assumes that Yahweh must save in person to be a savior; the way in which both Yahweh and these men can be saviors is that all true salvation must originate with Yahweh; he can use different persons and means of accomplishing salvation, but the debt of salvation is ultimately owed to Yahweh. This is clearly illustrated in the passage I cited in which it reads "according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours" (Neh. 9:27); it is clear that the deliverers given unto Israel were sent BY YAHWEH; that is the sense in which Yahweh is the only savior; not because he comes in person every single time to save, but that salvation ultimately comes from him, no matter which form it takes. Pro is also very hypocritical in his effort to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person; to prove his conclusion, he says that the Holy Spirit speaks, can be lied to, can be grieved, and is referred to with singular personal pronouns; however, this is the same line of reasoning that I used to prove that Yahweh was a single person, and Pro dismissed that argument as invalid. The sword cuts both ways; if that line of evidence is invalid for showing that Yahweh is a single person, then it is equally invalid for trying to show that the Holy Spirit is a person; otherwise, to be consistent, Pro should argue that the Holy Spirit can be more than one person as well. The fact that Pro employs such an obvious double-standard is evidence that his goal is not to be consistent or defend what the Bible clearly says, but to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Pro's argument that the Holy Spirit is a person is also flawed for another reason; Pro assumes that Jesus is referring to a literal person in John 16, and does not seem to entertain the possibly that a figure of speech is being used. In verse 25 Jesus says that he HAS (past tense) been speaking to them in proverbs, but that a time will come (future tense) when he will speak to them plainly about the Father; this gives strong evidence to the idea that Jesus' language about the Holy Spirit was proverbial, and not meant to be taken literally; and if it was figurative language, that would also fit into the principle of interpretation that figurative language is to be interpreted differently than literal language, and thus the comforter should not be interpreted as if it was a literal person.