Biblical proof-texts for the Trinity are not proof-texts at all.

The proof texts for the trinity within the Bible are specifically confirming the the trinity. The passages you mentioned are fantastic examples of this specifically noting that "Jesus is God" or that "Jesus is the Father" or that "Jesus is responsible for the actions attributed to God". There are remarkably good counter examples which rather clearly suggest that Jesus isn't God. These exist most likely because Trinitarianism was a later suggestion and the proof-texts were added later. This is why we see so many trinity suggestion in John (the latest gospel) and nearly none in Mark (the earliest). There is an organized campaign to provide justification for Trinitarianism against Arianism from the time of the Council of Nicaea onward as the religion evolved. Arianism is the early church heresy (not a pejorative) that Jesus was an independent creation of God, above the angels but below and distinct from God. Christ the Messiah given to Earth as the sacrifice of the sins of man. Who died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God. These are all things which make perfect sense as an Arian interpretation, but seem a bit confused under the Trinitarianism. These different schisms within the Early Church are quite evidently present within the canon and the select versions of those books of canon selected. The Gospels and much of the Bible shows editing well into the 4th century. I would highly recommend Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman in this respect. Why have I bothered to point out these early heresies within the church and the marks they left on the scriptures? I have done this to give readers a broad understanding of how proof tests for Trinitarianism can exist alongside statements which would only make sense under an Arian interpretation. However, this debate does not concern itself with whether one can successfully establish that the New Testament confirms an Arianist interpretation. Rather the sole concern of this debate is whether those texts within the Bible concerning the Trinity are, in fact, confirming the Trinity. This is rather trivial to establish: they were more than likely added to the the Gospels specifically to attest to the Trinity. Trinitarianism was the established religious view while the Bible, and the books which were later established as the Biblical canon, were being heavily edited. The approval of which text would become canon and which version of which texts were done by individuals specially supporting Trinitarianism. Though, you certainly cannot whitewash the Gospels and remove every reference to the earlier more acceptable interpretations it does not allow for the denial that the texts which suggest the trinity do not suggest the trinity. The proof-texts in the Bible were added to lend weight to Trinitarianism, lend weight to Trinitarianism. As such, the case for Con is simple, establish that material added to the Gospels to suggest the oneness of the Godhead and a triune Christian God do exactly that. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Clearly, the Word was God and the Word was made Flesh. John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 10:30-31 I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. John 10:38-39 The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him. John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. Colossians 1:16 For by him [Jesus] were all things created. Colossians 2:9 For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 1 Timothy 3:16 God was made manifest in the flesh. Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Revelation 1:17 Fear not; I am the first and the last. Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. -------------------- My opponent points to these lines from the Bible and concludes that when taken in conjunction with other lines seem to be patently absurd unless those lines are tweaked in this way, and we ignore that, and understand that the Father and Son are one in some "other" way. Pro argues that "The later post-Biblical doctrine that define the Trinity as one being in three persons is not derived from the Bible but is added to it." -- To the contrary, the Trinity was settled more than fifty years before the Biblical canon was established. This is why the trinity references are in the Bible at all. This is why we don't see the well established versions of Mark being laced with suggestions that the Father is the Son, whereas John is teeming with them. The trinity references were added to the Bible. As such, they are actually trinity references. The most clear and obvious example of this is: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. That is clearly and obviously attesting to the Trinity. It is part of the Bible. Is is acceptable as a proof text. The suggestion that this is "almost universally recognized as being an interpolation (addition) to scripture" doesn't matter. The fact that it attests to the trinity is almost certainly a slam dunk for my my side. If you are going to suggest that you cannot draw proof-text from later interpolations, where does it stop? Can you not cite the "he who is without sin" story? How about the virgin birth? The first couple chapters of Luke? The letters of Paul we're rather certain are fake? I contend that subtle tweaks to combine the Father and Son, to make the Son the "Word made Flesh" are all probably later additions and suggestions as we can tell by their prevalence in John but infrequency in the other gospels as well as this 1 John "slam dunk", are all acceptable as proof text. "Prooftexting is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition rhetorically through an appeal to authority. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition." -- The very existence of these passages to suggest, even weakly, that the trinity is established by the Bible shows that they are, in fact, proof-texts. Perhaps you might argue successfully that Trinitarianism was not properly established by the early scriptures and those closest to the originals, and I would not disagree. However, the existence of these proof-texts proves they are proof-texts. A proof text is a line yanked out of the Bible to support some position, often rhetorically and often out of context. Your argument is that the position is not supported within context and without obvious interpolation. That's not proof-text though, nor is it a requirement for proof text. ------ The Trinity is is supported by the Bible. Here's my proof-text: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. You can say it's a later additional all you want. It's in the Bible and it confirms the Trinity. And I just used it as a proof text. Perhaps a better topic would be in order, but as it stands now: I have a good argument against your main thesis, and I have a flawless argument, correct by definition, against the topic as given. Q.E.D.