The God of the Bible is not triune in nature.

Regarding John 17:3, Pro asked, "On what basis do you change the grouping of "true God(s)" to incorporate Jesus and the Holy Ghost [or "Spirit"]?" (1) Since the Father is the ONLY true God, ALL OTHER GODS ARE FALSE. So if Jesus and the Holy Spirit, who are both called God in Isa 9:6; John 1:1; 20:28; Heb 1:8; Acts 5:3-4 and other places, are not in the group (true God), then they are false gods. This would mean we are in trouble, because a false god can't save us! (2) Jesus is called the true God in 1 John 5:20: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." (KJV) Notice here that the true God is the eternal life, right? 1 John 1:1-2 begins by telling us about the "eternal life" which was with the Father who became flesh so he they could feel him with their hands. That's Jesus. Jesus is the eternal life, which according to chapter 5 verse 20 is the true God. More than that, Jesus is the hearer of prayer in that same John 5. Verse 12-15 say: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him [who? all the previous verses were talking about the Son], that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he [the Son] heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him." (3) Pro is making a theological doctrine out of the word "only" in John 17:3 in order to excluse the Son from the group "true God." But this is faulty logic because it isn't consistent and breaks down when used with other passages. Jude 4: "..our ONLY Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." (NWT) Does the fact that Jesus is our ONLY owner and Lord exclude the Father from being our owner and Lord? If not, we can't use this kind of logic to separate the Father from the Son in John 17:3. In fact, because Jesus is our ONLY owner and Lord, he has to be part of the same being as the Father, otherwise, the Father can't be our owner and Lord. "I, even I, am the Lord [YHWH]; And there is no savior besides Me," (Isaiah 43:11). On what basis do you incorporate Jesus into the category "Savior(s)" when Isa 43:11 says only Yahweh is in this group? That would make Jesus out to be Yahweh. So your own logic defeats you. 1 Corinthians 11:3 was not talking about the NATURE of Christ, as if he is some inferior type of being from the Father, but only about his role. A manager at work may be over his staff, but that doesn't make them less human than he is. Similarly, Jesus taking on the role of a servant to the Father does not make Him any less divine. Christ, "Who, being in very nature (footnote: "in the form of") God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." (Php 2:6-7) This clearly shows Jesus is God BY NATURE, but took a role of submission when he took on our human nature. Pro points out that his position with God the Father as His head is spoken of long after he returned to heaven, but convenient neglected to also mention that he remained a man in that nature of a servant after his return to heaven. 1 Timothy 2:5 and Acts 17:31 were also written long after the ascension, and these speak of Jesus as still being a man. So in his human nature, he continues in this role. Notice also 1 Corinthians 11:3 says the husband is head of his wife, so does Pro think women are less human then men? Why then assume Jesus would be less divine, that is, less omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, or any other attribute that makes God, God? This verse only differentiates Jesus as a separate person from the Father, but not as a separate being. I invite you to see the difference between "being" and "person" here: https://www.google.com... So the "person" only refers to individual consciousness, intelligence and rationality, but "being" is the totality of the thing. Jesus is not the triune being, only part of Him, but he is a complete person. Amazingly, Pro uses John 20:17 and Rev 3:12 where Jesus calls the Father "my God," as proof the Father is God, and I agree; but when Thomas calls Jesus "my God" in John 20:28 he won't allow the same term to carry this same meaning that he himself ascribed to it just a few sentences earlier. Not consistent. "My" is a posessive word. So Jesus is the God of Thomas. The Greek literally says "kai ho Theos mou" - "the God OF ME." All through his argument he claims Jesus is a separate person from God, meaning the Father, but all trinitarians agree that Jeus is not God the Father, he is God the Word (John 1:1). Pro is fighting modalism here, the doctrine that the Father and Son are the same person; we don't teach that! There are three persons in the Trinity, not one. Pro says that Acts 5:31 "establishes that Jesus was not the highest, as he was exalted." Yet, in the New World Translation he believes in, it says Jehovah "has BECOME highly exalted." (Exo 15:1) So was not Jehovah the highest? Most passages Pro uses focus on Jesus as a man, such as John 14:28, but we've already seen via Philippians 2, Jesus was in the "form" of God (which no mere created being could be because the Greek word for "form" means all the innate natural characteristics), so if God was omniscient so was He, if God was omnipotent so was He, etc. He choose to take on a servant role. John 5:30, by saying the Son can do nothing of himself, proves He is God, because had he been other than God he would have the free will to go off in rebellion doing his own thing. Because He is God, he literally CANNOT. Now let Pro explain why Jesus CANNOT do anything of His own initiate. You can, why can't Jesus? Pro says "Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that Jesus was both God and man." But it does say he was man, and other verses do say He was God, like Hebrews 1:8, John 1:1, and 20:28. Satan tempting Jesus doesn't prove Jeus isn't God because God was tempted according to Psalm 95:8-9. "Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers TEMPTED ME, proved me, and saw my work." (KJV) Pro needs to learn there are two types of temptation in the Bible: inward temptation which is an inward desire to do what's wrong (this God cannot do), and outward temptation which is only the "presentation" made by the enemy towards us but doesn't imply any desire on our part. Surely both the Father and the Son could have no desire to sin, but could be presented with opportunities to sin by the enemy. Did Jesus DESIRE to worship Satan? No. Jesus had bigger, better kingdoms in heaven, and will have more in the future, so how could he be attracted by Satan's offer of such broken, fallen kingdoms that are doomed to perish anyway? Pro says it makes no sense for Satan to tempt God, so did it make sense for Israel to tempt Him in the wilderness? Moreover, the God who says he was tempted in Psalm 95, is the Holy Spirit. Heb 3:7-11 says it was the Holy Spirit speaking on that occasion. You claim Satan wouldn't have tried to tempt Jesus if He was God because Jesus couldn't fail in that case, but look, Satan fought a war in heaven in Rev 12. Do you think Satan thought he could win? Satan argued with God about Job in Job 1 and 2; do you think Satan believed he could outsmart God? Did Satan believe He knew more than the omniscient God, so that he could win this gamble over Job's loyalty? What can I say? Pride blinds people, it blinds Satan too. Pro is saying that if He was God, Jesus should have come proclaiming "I am God, worship me," and he shouldn't have prayed, read the word, etc, cause it wouldn't make sense, but then what kind of example would that be for us to follow? Pro claims Jesus is "a god" in the same sense as men are called "gods" in Psalm 82, but those gods are FALSE gods. They are wicked, because they "defend the unjust" and "show partiality to the wicked." (vs 2) Verse 5 says they know nothing, and walk in darkness. Doesn't sound like a son of God to me, so verse 7 must be sarcasm. God sarcastically says, "You are gods" "but you will die like men." (vs 7) Death is used to prove they are not real gods, just as it was with the king of Tyre: "Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:" (Eze 28:2-3) Notice the sarcasm, you don't really think he was wiser than Daniel do you? Nor were these wicked judges sons of the Most High, nor gods. "Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee." (Eze 28:9) Just as his death showed he wasn't a god, God says the same about the judges of Ps 82. Notice after all his talk about context, Pro quotes John 20:31 without its proper context. Just look at the previous verse (vs 30). It was, not Thomas' profession of faith in his diety ("my God"), but rather, the "signs" or "miracles" Jesus performed that were written to show he was the Son of God. So this isn't an explanation of what Thomas said. "My God" always means "the God I worship" in every other verse. I'm out of space, but will finish my rebuttals in the next round.