The Bible Teaches God is a Trinity

"Would the Jews have understood YHWH to be Triune?" Irrelevant; the Jews didn't understand Jesus to be the Messiah either and they were wrong. (John 1:11) They had a history of rejecting God's prophet and not understanding the word. (Matt 23:33-37; Acts 4:24-29) But true believers among them would have known God is triune. The question is "does the Bible teach" a triune God, not if the Jews would have known. Deu 6:4 merely shows YHWH is one God, not that he is one person. The Hebrew word here for "one" is "echod," and is also used in the Bible to indicate a plurality within unity: "and they [husband and wife] shall be one (echod) flesh." (Gen 2:24) "And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed to him but a few (echod) days." (Gen 29:20) "the rest also of Israel were of one (echod) heart." (1 Chron 12:38) So the singular use of "one" is Biblically used to denote plural subjects in unity; hence, it could also refer to one being, that is, one God, with 3 minds; thus, one God existing as 3 persons. In fact, even singular personal pronouns are used to mean more than one person (groups) which entirely wipes out Con's argument on the singular use of the word "one." (Hosea 11:1; 13:1; Isa 40:2) "Are other viewpoints just as legitimate as the mainstream one?" Irrelevant; truth isn't decided by majority or minority vote! What makes a view legitimate is the evidence for it, not how many accept it. "The Holy Spirit need not be taken as completely different entity from YHWH, or from "God the Father."" Yes he should; at Matthew 1:16-17 the Father spoke from heaven as the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus. It wasn't the Holy Spirit speaking, but the Father. Also, the Father "sends" the Holy Spirit. (John 14:26) Do you think the Father sent himself? At John 16:13 the Holy Spirit speaks only what he will hear; hear from who if not the Father? Jesus goes on to explain that he [the Holy Spirit] will receive from the Father and give unto the disciples (vss 14-15), showing the Holy Spirit and the Father are distinct; hence they are mentioned as distinct in Matthew 28:19. The Holy Spirit makes intercession for us, that is, he prays for us. (Rom 8:26-27) To whom if not to the Father? Does the Father pray to himself? This shows the Holy Spirit is not the Father. "Jesus did not have 2 dads" Says who? Joseph was one father, so was his father is heaven, so what's the big problem with having more than one dad? (Luke 3:23; Matt 26:53) How does this disprove the trinity? It merely gives the title "Father" to the Holy Spirit as well (in your mind), but that's no problem for Trinitarians, cause Jesus is called "Father" too. (Isa 9:6) "Calvin commented on the book of Romans and pointed out that in ch. 8, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably." So the Holy Spirit has more than one name, so what? "Jesus did not exist before he was born." Yes he did; Jesus said: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee BEFORE the world was." (John 17:5) The Son could not have glory with the father before the world was if he did not yet exist. "[God the Father] hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." (Heb 1:2) Since the Son was involved in creating the worlds with the Father, he had to exist before his human birth. This is also shown true at John 1:1-4, 14; Col 1:15-18. "He was in the world, and the world was made by him…" (John 1:10) Jesus made the world. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, even the Son of man." (John 3:12) Jesus came from heaven. He said so more than once: "For I came down from heaven." (John 6:38) Also see John 6:41, 46; 51, 62. "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:57-58) Jesus existed before Abraham, so his existence didn't begin with his human birth. At John 1:27-30 John the Baptizer admits that Jesus existed before him, even thought John was born 6 months before Jesus. Con goes on to argue that Jesus is the Father in the flesh, at least, that's how I understand his words. If I misunderstoof you I apologize, but the Bible shows Jesus is not his Father: Jesus said that the Father sent him. (John 3:17; 5:30) So either the Father sent himself, or Jesus was sent by the Father. Clearly they are two separate persons. "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42) Jesus didn't come of his own will, so he didn't decide to go, but was "sent" by another. Had Jesus been the Father he would have decided to become man and come into the world of his own volition, but that isn't the case. "I go unto my Father." (John 14:12, 28) How could the Father go to the Father? Obviously, Jesus wasn't the Father, but a person separate from him who could "go" to him. At John 17:5 Jesus describe himself as being "with" the Father before the world was. How could he be "with" the Father if he was not another person? "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit WITH me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down WITH my Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21) Jesus invites us to overcome and sit WITH him in the same way he overcame and sits WITH the Father, showing he is another person from the Father just as much as we are. In fact, at Rev 5:6-7 the Lamb (Jesus) is pictured as going to the Father who sits on the throne and taking a scroll from his hand, showing they are two persons. In verse 13 the distinction is made between "him that sitteth upon the throne" and "the Lamb." Jesus sits at the right hand of God, no doubt, as another person from the Father. There is even a conversation between God the Father and the Son when the Father tells him to sit at his right hand. (Acts 2:31-36) The Son and the Father are further distinguished at John 5:19; 30; 8:28; Matt 28:18; John 14:28 and 1 Cor 11:3. Since my opponent didn't rebut any of the evidence that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God or that there is only one God, and since I have shown all three are separate persons, then all the essential elements in the trinity doctrine are proved Biblical. Thus, the Bible teaches the trinity. His last argument is that the language of the trinity isn't used in the Bible, but really, that doesn't mean the concept isn't there. The Bible doesn't use the terms omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, and so forth, so does that mean that isn't what the Bible teaches about God? Surely not! The language Christians use to get over their beliefs may change in the future yet again, as language continues to change, and people seek more clear terms to define their beliefs and distinguish them from heresy. For example; to say "I believe in God," hardly tells us which God or which faith one belongs to; even a Muslim can make that same statement or a Hindu. But to say "I believe in the God of the Bible" narrows down the meaning somewhat. Is the word "Bible" in the Bible? No; does it mean we can't use that word for the books we hold as inspired? Why shouldn't we? So I don't see using non-Biblical language as a problem to describing Biblical teachings. The word "rapture" isn't in the Bible, but it's a very Biblical teaching. So Con's argument fails. I have shown every part of the Trinity doctrine to be Biblical: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit as distinct persons; there is only one God; each person is God; thus, 3 persons in one God. I look forward to Con's next post.