The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural.

My opponent said that in john 1:1 , "the beginning"is "as far back as we push are understanding", which means that The Word(Jesus) has Always existed. While that's a possible interpretation of the verse, It's possible that "the beginning" is referring to a time a bit closer to ours,i.e. When god created the heaven and earth in genesis 1:1, which my opponent has already stated. Since "the beginning" is a somewhat vague term, we just can't know when "the beginning" was. While the translation of john 1:1 that my opponent provides Is found in many versions of the Bible, there's other versions that provide different translations. For example: The Joseph smith translation of john 1:1 is:1 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God." Since there's different translations of the Bible, there's obviously different interpretations of it. In john 20:37 and romans 9:5 it's possible that Thomas and Paul weren't referring to Jesus as God because the two(Jesus and Heavenly Father) are combined in one substance, but because they're one in every other significant and eternal aspect imaginable. In Hebrews chapter 1 my opponent used many verses as proof texts for the doctrine of the trinity, while verse 3 of that same chapter can be used to prove the trinity false. It says: "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Kjv of john 1:3). The majesty on high is Heavenly Father and Jesus is the one who sat on his right hand. What I said earlier in this debate round about Thomas and Paul in john 20:37 and romans 9:5 also applies to 1 john 5:20 and the other verses my opponent used as proof text later in his argument. In rev. 5:13-14 it says:"To him who sits on the throne AND to the Lamb". I don't understand why my opponent used this passage to prove the doctrine of the trinity, because the one who sits on the throne(Heavenly Father) and the lamb(Jesus) can be shown as two separate individuals here. My opponent said that in acts 5:3, Paul said that aninias lied "to god", put this in acts 5:3, not even in the passage my opponent provided earlier. My opponent also said that in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul calls The lord the spirit, but he didn't provide a verse. I read through the whole chapter and couldn't find where Paul says this. The passages my opponent put under 3) the triune formula mention Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but that's it. They can be used to prove/disprove the doctrine of the trinity Either way. In my opponents conclusion he stated:" the gospel itself it trinitarian" and stated why he believes this without proof text. While there's scripture passages that can be used to prove the gospel is trinitarian, there's also passages that can be used to disprove it. A perfect example of this is Mathew 3:16-17 ,where It says Jesus came out of the water, the spirit of God DESCENDED like a dove( it's not in heaven anymore), and the voice from HEAVEN said "this is my beloved son." Jesus came out of the water, so he's on earth. The spirit of God descended, so it's not in heaven, and God IS in heaven, so Jesus, God, and the spirit of God are in 3 different places.