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

1) History Address 1) Agreed that angelfire is a biased source, I relied on that timeline only in so far as I saw events corroborated in the Hanson text. But the point still stands actually, and here's why. Even a biased source cannot make up councils or fabricate controversies. If so many councils did indeed discuss Arianism, it was widespread, persistent, and controversial enough to merit attention. Address 2) I will not concede Hanson is prejudiced, as he is a foremost scholar on the subject and also himself a Trinitarian. Hanson wasn't a controversial guy, he was a bland, boring, academician who merely compiled historical sources and explained the Arian Controversy over a span of 70 years. http://en.wikipedia.org... And even Hanson acknowledges the historical suppression of Arianism. He noted that after the Council of Nicaea the first ruling required that all Arian materials be burned. This became even more so the case under Theodosius who faced the Barbarian Hordes and an internal division caused by theology. The history of Arianism and its best writings were banned in the Empire. Most of what we know of Arianism we actually have to compile from the many, MANY, writings against it, which is actually an argument for its prominence. Fascinating that according to you this controversy was barely existent, only lasting the few years between the council of Alexandria and the council of Nicaea, and yet serious church leaders rigorously argued against it for over 70 years. It really is ironic that Arianism seems to dominate the polemic and apologetic writings of all the "Orthodox" bishops for nearly a century, especially if it was so handily defeated in the very first council. Also very weird that another 20 councils reconsidered the topic and produced creeds responding to it. Seems like overkill to me. Or it could be inferred that the Arian side of the story has been censored and everything points to a large Arian presence. Address 3) The definition of "Catholic" is "Universal", does that mean the church enjoys the membership of space aliens? Further, ecumenical means united, not worldwide. Ecumenism today is an effort to unite the fragmented churches, perhaps into a global church, but the name doesn't describe number it describes function. It is simply not the case that the whole world was so trinitarian that they all affirmed the Nicene Creed. In fact, the Nicene Creed isn't even trinitarian, it doesn't affirm the fullness of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity! It wasn't until years later that the Nicene Creed was edited to include the Holy Spirit, which was a tenet developed by Athanasius as he contended for the Trinity against popular Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org...). But I suppose this is just another coincidence, of course it isn't possible that the Catholic Church has admitted they destroyed all the Arian writings and suppressed arian theology through the force of law, oh wait, yes they did (http://www.newadvent.org...). Further, reading the history of that link will demonstrate that even the catholic church acknowledges how in dispute Arianism was! “It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian" You haven't a leg left to stand on. You cite Liberty University, of which I am an Alumni. I too shall read from their Church History Textbook: “In 318 or 319, Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, preached to his presbyters on The Great Mystery of the Trinity in Unity. One of the priests, Arius, an ascetic scholar and popular preacher, attacked the sermon because he believed that it failed to uphold a distinction among the persons in the Godhead.... The controversy became so bitter that Alexander had Arius condemned by a synod. Arius then fled to the friendly palace of Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia, who believed as he did. Constantine then called a council of the bishops of the church to work out a solution to the dispute. The council met at Nicaea in the early summer of 315. Between 250 and 300 bishops of the church were present, but fewer than ten were from the western section of the empire. The emperor presided over the first session and paid all costs.... Three views were put forth at the council. Arius, who was backed by Eusibius of Nicomedia and a minority of bishops present, insisted that Christ had not existed from all eternity but had a beginning by the creative act of God. Athanasius became the chief exponent of the what later was known as the orthodox view. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father; and for these views he suffered exile five times. The largest party was led by the gentle scholar and church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, whose dislike of controversy led him to propose a view that he hoped would be an acceptable compromise. He proposed a moderate view that would combine the best ideas of Arius and Athanasius... Orthodoxy gained a temporary victory at Nicaea, however the creed formulated here must not be confused with the Nicene Creed used by the church today, although that creed is similar it ends with the phrase “and in the Holy Spirit” without fully including it within the trinity”... Between 325 and 361, under Constantine and his sons, orthodoxy had to face a reaction that led to its defeat and the temporary victory of Arianism. A second reaction against orthodoxy, with orthodoxy's final victory in 381, came between 361 and 381. Emperor Theodosius in 381 defined as the faith of truth Christians the views formulated by the orthodox at Nicaea, but the years between 325 and 381 were marked by bitterness and contention.” (Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, pg 126-129) This is the final nail in the coffin. I have proven through historical timelines, through Catholic history, through the accounts of the best scholars on the era, and even through the history textbook of the nation's most conservative Evangelical University, that Arianism was both accepted for a time and popular, and eventually over-thrown by imperial order rather than church agreement. Game. Set. Match. You should have taken my advice and let this debate be a biblical one. You've now lost because you put all your eggs in the history basket. 2) Star Example This argument was dropped. It flows to the Con. 3) Adam and Eve Example I'm not saying that women aren't people, I'm saying your example has nothing to do with the trinity. I'm also deeply disappointed that the person who is supposed to be defending trinitarianism in this debate has an incomplete view of what it actually teaches. Pulling a rib from Adam and creating Eve has created two separate entities from one common batch of stuff. They are two different people, entirely. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are meant to be seen as three “heads” of the same body, as it were. This, by the way, is where we get that phrase “god head”. The Trinity defies a tangible example in the entire natural world, that's supposed to be the beauty of its mystery. The trinitarians of the 4th century would have exiled you for this view. 4) Elohim Elohim means “gods”, and this term has been used to describe angels. It is not reserved only for Jehova. This gentleman does a decent job of explaining this, and it is not a unique reading of the Bible, most seminarians learned this at some point in their Hebrew studies (http://www.thedivinecouncil.com...) 5) BIble References Still waiting. You have the burden of proof, your resolution requires biblical support, not historical support (good thing because if it did this debate would be over). You've lost the history ground, you've lost the logical ground, and when I get more characters I promise you'll lose the bible ground. Last chance, go Bible or lose.