The Trinity is supported by the Hebrew Tanakh

Rebuttals:The Catholic church adopting the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't imply that the Trinity originated there. Con brings up the argument that Elohim in Genesis could have referred to the angels. In previous rounds, i gave scholarly commentaries on why the alternative explanation of angels being Elohim isn't plausible. I will now explain how Elohim when referring to the God of Israel could not possibly refer to angels. In some contexts, Elohim can refer to the heavenly council of YHWH. Psalm 82:1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods [Elohim]. I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.Malak is the Hebrew term usually referring to angels (1). The Elohim here is composed of many different types of divine beings. If we were to interpret Elohim in Genesis 1:26-27 as God (singular) speaking to the angels, we would come to several difficulties in theology. The first problem is that angels lack the ability to create. No where in the Tanakh do we find verses indicating that angels can create. If angels can create then it would contradict Isaiah 45:18 "For the LORD is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. "I am the LORD," he says, "and there is no other." If you accept that God is singularly one then you would have to accept that only God can create. If you don't, you either admit two things: 1) He's plural because he's many gods which we obviously don't agree with this possibility. 2) He's a plural of majesty. However if you accept that he's a plural of majesty then you rule out the possibility of angels being spoken to and also acknowledge that only God (singular) has the ability to create. The second reason why Elohim in Genesis 1:26-27 cannot refer to angels is because if you believe that God is singularly one then you would have to admit that the angels cannot be made in his glorious image or otherwise you would admit that there are beings equal with God himself which is impossible. Psalm 113:5 "Who can be compared with the LORD our God, who is enthroned on high?" The last reason why Elohim cannot refer to angels is because angels do not have free will or the ability to choose right from wrong let alone acknowledge it. Psalm 103:20 "Bless the Lord, O you his angels,you mighty ones who do his word,obeying the voice of his word!"As you can see, angels simply obey God and never question his authority or have knowledge of good and evil. If Elohim in Genesis 3:22 is referring to angels, this would contradict Psalm 103:20. Who else can fit the solution as to why Elohim is plural? For these reasons, Elohim is plural not because of the angels. " If G-d was part of a trinity, would this not stay consistently the same in terminology throughout the Tanakh? " The fact is that it's not consistently used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Elohim in the plural as also used as well from the very beginning of Genesis. The Trinity states that God is a collective whole. In the context of Isaiah 53, the Messiah would be cut off or killed from his people and rise again. This chapter is referring to the incarnation of the Messiah into the body of a man. Isaiah 53:4-12"4 Surely He has borne our griefsAnd carried our sorrows;Yet we esteemed Him stricken,Smitten by God, and afflicted.5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,He was bruised for our iniquities;The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,And by His stripes we are healed.6 All we like sheep have gone astray;We have turned, every one, to his own way;And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,Yet He opened not His mouth;He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,So He opened not His mouth.8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,And who will declare His generation?For He was cut off from the land of the living;For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.9 And they made His grave with the wicked"But with the rich at His death,Because He had done no violence,Nor was any deceit in His mouth.10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;He has put Him to grief.When You make His soul an offering for sin,He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,For He shall bear their iniquities.12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,Because He poured out His soul unto death,And He was numbered with the transgressors,And He bore the sin of many,And made intercession for the transgressors." My opponent claims that the suffering servant is speaking of the nation of Israel, but i will demonstrate that this is not how it was originally intended to be interpreted. The manuscripts indicate that it was originally referring to one singular individual: "There is a solitary exception to this in v.8, where the Masoretic text says of the servant, בְּמֹתָ֑יו – “his deaths” in the plural. This would seem to speak of a compound servant, on one hand, or a poetic intensiveness on the other. But once we leave the 10th-century Masoretic text and look at other textual witnesses, the problem disappears. Our earliest witness (reflecting a translation of the Hebrew in the 3rd century BCE) is the Septuagint (LXX), which says τοQ66; θαν^0;του – “his death.” Singular, not plural. The Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls says בומתו – “his high places” – a scribal error with an extra vav, which if removed, becomes “his death.” Targum Jonathan has בְמֹותָא – “in the death.” Singular. The Latin Vulgate, a 4th-century CE witness to the Hebrew text, agrees with the LXX with pro morte sua – “for his death.” Singular. Based on these multiple sources, the original text which Isaiah wrote is most probably “his death” – a singular death for a singular (not compound servant." Moshe Kohen, 15th century rabbi says this: "This passage, the commentators explain, speaks of the captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used in it throughout. Others have supposed it to mean the just in this present world, who are crushed and oppressed nowâ€¦but these too, for the same reason, by altering the number, distort the verses from their natural meaning. And then it seemed to me thatâ€¦having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined "after the stubbornness of their own hearts," and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah." (1) Abraham Farissol wrote this: "In this chapter there seem to be considerable resemblances and allusions to the work of the Christian Messiah and to the events which are asserted to have happened to Him, so that no other prophecy is to be found the gist and subject of which can be so immediately applied to Him." (3) Israel was never blameless in the sight of God as chapter 1 indicates. How can a sinful nation bear it's own sins? How can the one who was cut off also be exalted? Here are several other messianic references (4) in which i will not have time to go over in full detail. In summary, my opponent has failed to address the following plural references to God from Round 2: Psalm 149:2 Job 35:10Isaiah 54:5Isaiah 51:22Ecclesiastes 12:1 As well as the messianic reference in Psalm 110. In conclusion, i find that the Messiah Jesus is the most likely solution for why Elohim is plural. Thank you for this interesting debate. Sources: 1. http://www.awakeoisrael.org...2. http://www.road2redeemer.com...3. http://oneinmessiah.net...4. http://www.bibleprobe.com...;