A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity

I am also saddened by just two hours given to digest the positive argument (which was clearly entirely new to him due to inaccuracies of understanding). <<< Address 1) My opponent would have the readers believe the Arian controversy was something widely supported. To then support this differing historical account rather than the Primary documentation sourced Catholic Encyclopedia I posted, my opponent posts a scribd timeline webpage sourcing "The Trinity Delusion". The source for this timeline is a "some guy's" personal bible study page. This person has zero credentials and posts zero sources for me to "fact" check this new version of History. To compound that; 1)this person holds no position of authority within a church body 2)takes much of his work from Jehovah's Witness which have proven to change the biblical text when it suites them much less history. 3)The sites creator clearly has a detrimental bias and emotionally makes fun of the Triune Orthodox belief system on his website, rather than an intellectual opposing position. Here are just a few of those "works" posted by my opponents source: . http://www.angelfire.com... "Holy Spirit Absurdities" "The Revised Trinitarian Version of the Bible" "How to build your own Triune God" Address 2) My opponent then quotes another biased person. This one has the distinction of being a Historian and author, but clearly has a purpose of giving Arianism much more weight than it should. Example below: "The subject brought to the fore by Arius was one upon which no consensus had ye been reached among the Church's teachers. .. .No organ for defining universally accepted dogma had yet been devised. And when it very soon was devised by the ingenuity of Constantine, the General Council served at first only to make darkness darker. " (Hanson, Pg 145)" This statement is factually wrong. Even a tiny bit of research or biblical knowledge can prove this to be wrong. Just a quick look at Daily Catholic website would point you to the fact that Constantine in no way had an "original" idea in how to resolve this conflict. This Website will point you to the first councils (Acts 15 and Galatians 2) held in the Scripture itself were the defining means. Synods were held all the time throughout History and it is how it resolved doctrinal conflicts. This council was the first "ecumenical/world-wide" council. . http://www.dailycatholic.org... -There was in fact a local council that came before the first ecumenical that excommunicated Arius already. If this one single quote is so blatantly inaccurate it is no wonder why many historians take issue with Hansons "understanding" of history. I would recommend another book… Address 3) The definition of Ecumenical is "world-wide". Not one sixth of the Church happened to show up. It was an "all expense paid" by the empire calling to gather to resolve the understanding of the Arian position. This was the first world-wide call to gather and at no cost to you or the church. The people who gathered were excited, especially as each of them had seen much of the persecution under Diocletian. Though some of the western churches may not have attended, those directly established by Paul did, and it was a largely Origen debate of the Eastern empire and was not a debate throughout the whole church. When the bishops gathered, everyone wanted to avoid another schism like what just happened with the Novations and they wanted to appease everyone. When it was read that Jesus Christ was not God, A near unanimous roar went up that opposed the five bishops supporters. (Source: Liberty University Textbook, The Story of Christianity. Justo L. Gonzalez Chapter 17) << I will concede to my opponent that there is a debate today, not due to a historical competition of another orthodoxy, but due to the musings and defamations of the Triune Doctrine by outsiders to the Christian faith/ Quasi Christians. Again, to concede that Arianism was a competing orthodoxy or that your sources were factually accurate would be a dishonor to the Truth. << My opponent's rebuttal fell dramatically short and ineffective. Rebuttal 1) Star Example: My opponent states: "If you remove some of the matter within a star you don't have another star, you have some of its component matter. Just as if you remove my lung you don't have another me. " Address 1) My opponent may have missed the scripture where a single rib is plucked from Adam (a component) and fashioned into a complete person. Is my opponent stating that a woman is merely a component of man and indeed NOT a person unto herself? A woman is not a valid soul identity but still just a rib? I believe my opponent will need to recapture that stray statement. -Additionally, procreation is exactly two components coming together equally and generating a whole person. Address 2) The power of this example and the primary source quoted above can be seen when some time is given to digest it. God formed Adam from the ground, then took a rib, a piece of Adam and formed an equal person. They are of the exact same substance. They are both of the substance of Mankind. They are two separate persons of the same substance. The two come back together in "unity" (Echad) and the two components given generate a third person. All humans are of the same substance of the first Adam. By default we share his substance. We are not of any differing substance. We are consubstantial with Adam, but differing people. We are all "corporately" one mankind. Rebuttal 2) Genesis Interpretation: My opponent states: "Again this is off base. First many theologians believe that when God used "us" He may have been referring to the Angelic beings. " And "Second Arians once argued that the Father was speaking to the Son, who was the first created thing in the universe, but a creature, not God. This passage does not disallow for this possibility. Therefore it is no more likely Trinitarian than it is Arian. " Address 1) Concerning "us" being Angelic - This would be a minority view and my opponent would need to show this interpretation as sound, in the face of my already pointing to the Hebrew use of Elohim (plural form of God) rather than El (Singular form of God) during those scriptural accounts…unless my opponent is postulating that the angels are indeed of Deistic substance… Address 2) Elohim directly purposes God speaking to God thus clearly more likely Trinitarian. It would have stated El said to …. Whatever. Linked is the Hebrew Text for Gen 1:26 . http://interlinearbible.org... Rebuttal 3) My opponent States in the Adam and Eve comparison: "This doesn't even represent an Orthodox view of the Trinity, as it would allow for even a Mormon concept of God (three persons made of the same "God stuff") to fit comfortably within its framework. " Address 1) I do not believe the resolution stated an orthodox view of the trinity only that a trinitarian view need be asserted and defended. I really really want to avoid the need for you to define what is an orthodox view. We are already clearly having issues with your historical viewpoint. No offense. Address 2) The concept of entity will be as follows. As the three primary colors (and all subsequent) make the color white, as well the three persons of the Trinity make the Single "Corporate" being of God. These persons of God do not need to be the "same" type of persons as we are but since we are made in his image… we can easily conclude that God is understandable in the same fashion, as we are understood. Address 3) Sources: . http://www.newadvent.org... Part XI . http://www.newadvent.org... Homily 12