Trinity is not biblical

The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by deductive reasoning from the following points:1. There is one and only one God.2. The Father is God.3. The Son is God4. The Holy Spirit is God.5. The Father is not the same person as the Son.6. The Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit.7. The Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father.It follows from 1-4 that:8. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God.It follows from 5-8 that the one God is three persons. That's the doctrine of the Trinity. Since it is arrived at through deductive reasoning from points 1-7, it follows that if 1-7 are Biblical, then the Trinity is Biblical.Burden of proofSince the burden of proof in this debate is on Pro, I will not attempt to prove the above seven points. Instead, I will just rebut Pro's attempt to disprove the Trinity.Pro can disprove the Trinity by disproving any one of the above seven points. In his opening, Pro attempted to disprove points 3, 4, 6, and 7.The personhood of the HSConcerning point 4, 6, and 7, Pro attempted to show that the Holy Spirit is not a person. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, then 4, 6, and 7 are false.The best (and possibly the only) way to show the Holy Spirit (or anything else) is a person is to show that it has the attributes of personhood, such as sentience, emotions, a faculty of volition, etc. There are some pretty clear passages in the New Testament concerning these things. The Holy Spirit has a mind (Romans 8:26-27) and a will (1 Corinthians 12:11). He can be lied to (Acts 5:3-4), he can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), he can be blasphemed (Matthew 12:31-32), and he can speak (Acts 13:2). Since only persons can have these capacities, it follows that the Holy Spirit is a person.The typical response to these passages by people who deny the personhood of the HS is to say they are personifications. That is a weak response because it could be used of any spiritual person in the Bible. It could be used of the Father. It could be used of Satan. If attributing personal attributes to a being does not indicate that the being a person, then nothing does.Besides that, you can't blaspheme an inanimate object. Blaspheme is a form of insult, and only persons can be insulted. So while personification might work when it comes to things like speaking, it doesn't work in the case of blaspheme.Pro brought up three passages that he thinks show the HS is not a person. Luke 9:26 and Matthew 24:36 merely excludes the HS from their field of reference. There's no indication that the HS isn't a person; only that the field of reference is not exhaustive.Matthew 11:27 is the only passage Pro brought up that could possibly be used as an argument against the personhood of the HS. But since it isn't clear what the field of reference is when Jesus said, "no one," this is a weak argument against the personhood of the HS. Pro must make the case that the "no one" is absolutely exhaustive.The deity of the SonPro points out that while Jesus was tempted, God could not be tempted. But being tempted can mean one of two different things. To be tempted can mean to be successfully persuaded to do wrong or it can mean to have an attempt made to persuade to do wrong. Neither the Father nor the Son can be tempted in the sense of being persuaded to do wrong. That's why inspite of the devil's efforts, Jesus remained sinless. But both the Father and the Son can be tempted in the sense of having someone attempt to entice them to do wrong. If the Father could not be tempted in this sense, then the command not to tempt God would be superfluous. The fact that there is a law against tempting God shows that it is possible to tempt God in some sense. Otherwise, the sin of tempting God would be uncommittable.Pro's arguments from John 17:3, Ephesians 1:17, and 1 Peter 1:3 all beg the question against the Trinity because they only work if you assume God is only one person, whereas according to the Trinity, God is three persons. If God is only one person, and Jesus is distinguished from God, then it's impossible for Jesus to be God. But if God is three persons, and Jesus is distinguished from God, then that doesn't necessarily mean Jesus isn't God. After all, according to the Trinity, Jesus is a distinct person from the Father, and since the Father is God, we can distinguish Jesus from God even if Jesus is God. So when it says the Father is the only true God, that doesn't exclude Jesus from also being the only true God unless you assume God is only one person, and therefore beg the question. If Jesus has a Father, and if that Father is God, then Jesus has a God even if Jesus is God. So it's only by begging the question that Pro can use these passages an argument against the deity of Jesus.Pro also points out that while Jesus died, God did not die. He further says that it wasn't just Jesus' body that died, but Jesus himself. This argument is fallacious because what it means for a person to die is for their body to die. Jesus died in the sense that his physical human body died. I'm not sure what he means by God dying. Obviously, the Father didn't die because the Father didn't have a physical body. Perhaps he means that for God to die would be for God to cease to exist. If so, then he's just equivocating on the word "die." The claim that Jesus died is not the claim that Jesus ceased to exist. According to the doctrine of the Incarnation, Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature. Jesus only died with respect to his human nature. Nothing about the divine died.Arguments for the deity of JesusI've got a little room left, so I thought I'd make some arguments for the deity of Jesus.John 1:3 "All things came into being through him [Jesus], and apart from him, nothing came into being that has come into being."Think about that for a minute. It says that everything that has come into being, came into being through Jesus. If Jesus is one of the things that came into being, then he would have to have come into being through himself, which means he would have to have existed before he existed, which is a contradiction. So it's impossible for Jesus to have come into being. That means Jesus is eternal, and that means Jesus is God.Jesus' role in creation is also presented in Colossians 1:15-17 where it says that all things were created by Jesus. Paul goes on to emphasize the exhaustiveness of the "all things." He says, "both in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through him and for him." He goes on to say that Jesus is before all things" and that "in him all things hold together." So Jesus is the uncreated creator.According to Isaiah 44:24, God created the heavens and the earth all alone. If Jesus had any role at all in creation, then either he is God, or God was not all alone. Since Isaiah tells us that God was all alone, it follows that Jesus must be God.Isaiah also tells us that God will not give his glory to another (Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 48:11). But John's gospel tells us that Jesus shares God's glory (John 17:5 and John 5:23). We see a picture of Jesus receiving the same glory, honor, and worship as the Father in Revelation 5:13.Revelation 5:13 "And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, 'To him to sits on the throne, and to the lamb [i.e. Jesus], be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.'"Noticed that it says "every created thing" was giving glory, etc., to both the lamb and the one sitting on the throne. It follows that neither the one sitting on the throne nor the lamb can be one of the created things.