The Bible Teaches God is a Trinity

Okay, when I mention the "Jews" in regards to what they would consider YHWH's nature to be, I am talking about "true believers among them" and not those who rejected His prophets. Your dismissal of my question as irrelevant is rather unfair. However, since you won't make any attempt to actually understand what I'm trying to say, I'll reword. Would "true believers" in the Old Testament times have understood YHWH to be Triune – or would their understanding of YHWH even have allowed for that possibility? Unless you want to argue that Abraham, Isaac, David, Isaiah, and Elijah were not "true believers among them," than my question is concerning whether or not there is any evidence that they understood YHWH to be Triune. Obviously, a negative answer to this question does not disprove the Trinity – but it is a relevant question and that is the point you made in response to my question. You said "true believers among them would have known God is Triune." So I ask the unavoidably relevant question: Is there any evidence that these true believers understood YHWH to have a Triune nature? On to "Ahad / Echod." I mention both here to clarify for a 3rd party reading this that when I said "Ahad" in Round 2 I was referring to the same word that Pro is calling "Echod." There are different standards for transliterating Hebrew and I saw the Kh sound and went with an "H." Also, I saw the vowel and the vowel is some weird combination I didn't quite understand, but it looks like an "a" sound. Nevertheless, now that I have made that clarification, I will use "echod" for this brief discussion of the word. It is the word that means "one" as in "one, two, three." I hear it on my daughter's Baby Einstein: Languages of the World video when they count. Now I have my Hebrew Tanach open in Genesis. In the passage about man coming together with woman, the relevant phrase in Hebrew is "lebashr echod." (Again, transliterations may vary.) "Bashr" is the word for "flesh." "Le" is a hard to define preposition that often means something along the lines of "for" but I think might be best rendered here as "like" or "as." Either way, a man and woman do not become one bashr, they become [preposition] on bashr. An honest Hebrew reader would not assume that they actually became one flesh. In the passage regarding Jacob and Rachel, the relevant phrase in Hebrew is "keyomim echodim." The suffix "-im" is plural. "Echodim" is literally "ones" not the singular "echod" referring to a plural meaning. The translation "few" is appropriate. Either way, "yom" is the word for day, and it too is affixed with a prepositional prefix "ke" which means "as." The seven years were not as one day, they seemed as a few days. When all Israel is of one heart, this means they all shared one desire. The metaphorical nature of the term "one heart" is clear. In the phrase "YHWH is one," it does not have any preposition affixed to indicate that YHWH is "like one" or "as one," nor is it at all apparent that there is some hidden metaphor whereby He is actually three but instead says that He is one. Regarding the Hosea 11:1 reference, the word "Israel" is a singular word, and thus rates a singular pronoun. To say "I loved them" of Israel would be grammatically incorrect. Here, Hosea uses a singular pronoun to refer to a singular antecedent. None of this "entirely wipes out" my argument that "one" means "one" and that only changes when a preposition indicates that something is like "one," or in the case of obvious metaphor. If Deut said that "YHWH is one" and didn't mean "one," than whoever translated YHWH's words into Hebrew (or wrote it down if it was in Hebrew) used the wrong word to express it. I asked if other viewpoints on the Godhead were as legitimate (that is, can other explanations equally find a basis in Scripture) as the mainstream, Trinitarian view. Pro says that the truth isn't decided by majority vote. I certainly agree, and if truth was decided by majority vote, Pro would be right. The Trinitarian position is the majority Christian position and has been since at least Nicaea. So, Pro's answer was something "irrelevant" to my question. One needs to be more careful not read preconceived notions into texts. In Matthew 3, the YHWH's spirit makes an appearance and a voice is heard. The voice of YHWH came down from heaven. If YHWH can be everywhere at once, His manifestation as a dove and His voice coming down from heaven need not be contradictory, and there is no need due to Matthew 3 to invoke a separation of persons. The big problem with having more than one dad is that Joseph and YHWH were not both his actual fathers. Joseph had the role of human father in Jesus' life. The question regards the source of the Jesus' conception. I do not claim that the Holy Spirit has the title "the Father" per se. I claim that a strict reading of the verse would make the Holy Spirit (and not "the Father" if we accept the Trinitarian distinctions) the conceptual father of Jesus instead of the Father. It has nothing to do with titles; rather I am saying that if the Holy Spirit is separate from the Father then the Holy Spirit is actually the father instead of the Father. My purpose is not to totally prove that Modalism or any other view is the correct one. My only point in bringing any of this up is to show that this is yet another way (in addition to the Trinity) to attempt to deal with these dilemmas. The supposed "God the Son" is never alluded to before the birth of Jesus. Clearly, Jesus claims to have been the Creator. This is because in addition to being human, Jesus was YHWH. Now, of course this brings up problems with modalism right off the bat. I admit that the following notion is somewhat of a dilemma: In addition to being a physical human who was the son of both Mary and YHWH, he was a spiritual being, YHWH. Now to me, there is really no way around the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament that does not involve asserting some confusing hypothesis regarding the Godhead. I don't believe that this modalistic dilemma is any more problematic than the Trinitarian assertion that God is both one and three. Now, if Jesus claims to be Creator that means He is YHWH. But that also means that He was not merely "with" the Creator. There is no separation of persons implied – only unity. Jesus is stating his divinity unequivocally. He also does so when He says that He came down from heaven. He was also a human and thus in that role He had to submit to His Father – YHWH – who was omnipresent and thus present in heaven as well as in the person of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus the human would have to refer to the Father as somewhat separate since YHWH was not limited to Jesus. If Jesus was human and God, and the Holy Spirit was God, and at some times some Biblical authors deal with these modes or experiences of God by drawing distinctions, it does not follow that God is Triune, that He is limited to 3 ways of expressing Himself, or any other systematic way of looking at it (I also want to be clear that I would not categorically argue that Modalism is taught in the Bible). I must also clarify my final point. I do not object to the Trinity because the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. That is not my complaint. Your point about omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence would be well taken if that were the case. I was complaining that these doctrines of the Trinity are not clearly spelled out in Scripture but are inferred instead – I don't care about what word is used to express it. The Bible makes many independent claims by many different authors that could be arranged in such a way to support the Trinity but not singular passage exists by one author comprehensively addressing the issue. It is clearly stated that YHWH can do all things, so I have no problem with omnipotence as a doctrine by any name. It is clearly stated that YHWH can see all things, so I have no problem with omniscience as a doctrine by any name. It is clearly stated that one cannot escape from YHWH, so I have no problem with omnipresence either. I will not address the issue of the rapture other than to say there is certainly something there but there are so many different ways of looking at it that I don't know one word can capture it all. But my point is that I am okay with a belief expressly stated in the Bible regardless if the word Christians use to describe it can be found. The Trinity instead is the result of a verse here, part of a Pauline letter here, some part of the Torah there, etc. Anything can be defended using so liberal a form of hermeneutics. I have no problem with the Trinity as a hypothesis to try and explain the issue, but it does not have a monopoly on "what the Bible teaches."