Trinity is not biblical

The personhood of the Holy SpiritAs predicted, Pro dismisssed all the verses showing the HS to be a person as "personifications," but he failed to deal with my argument to the contrary. He never explained how an impersonal entity can be blasphemed. His dismissals also leave us with no reason to think the Father or Satan are persons since we could just as easily dismiss all of their personal attributes as "personifications."Pro dropped his arguments from Luke 9:26, Matthew 24:36, and Matthew 11:27. In this round, he brought up several more passages which he thinks indicate that the HS is not a person.He argues that the HS is not a person because Paul didn't mention him along with the Father and the Son in the salutations of his letters. That conclusion doesn't follow. Paul mentions all three together elsewhere.2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."It is just as absurd to conclude that the HS is not a person based on his omission in some passage as it is to conclude the Father or the Son are not persons due to their omission in other passages. Here's another passage that mentions all three.Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."This would be an odd passage if the HS weren't just as much a person as the Father and the Son. Here's another showing all three.1 Corinthians 12:4-6 "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit [i.e. the Holy Spirit]. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord [i.e. the Son, Jesus]. There are varieties of effects, but the same God [i.e. the Father] who works all things in all persons."Again, this would be a very odd passage if the HS were not just as much a person as the Father and the Son. Paul goes on to mention various gifts distributed by the HS, then says, "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills" (1 Cor 12:11).The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit play different roles, which is why they are spoken of in different ways and why two appear in some passages but not the third. So none of the passages Pro brought up amount to an argument against the personhood of the HS.Pro brings up several other passages he thinks indicate the HS is not a person, but I don't see it. He says a person can't be a gift, but why not? He says you can't quench a person, but why not? To quench the HS in the context of 1 Thessalonians 5:19 is to "dispise prophetic utterance." As Pro pointed out, it is the HS's role to move prophets to speak from God. I fail to see how that's any indication that the HS is not a person. He says you can't partake of a person, and you can't be baptized with a person, but he doesn't tell us why not. None of these passages are inconsistent with the HS being a person and the fact that Pro would use these passages as his strongest case against the pesonhood of the HS shows just how weak his position is.Pro attempts to show the differences in how the Father and Son are portrayed and how the HS is portrayed. He says that uniike the Father and Son, the HS is portrayed as a dove; however, Jesus is portrayed as a lamb (John 1:36). He says the Holy Spirit is likened to a fire; however YHWH is also portrayed as a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24). There are lots of metaphors for how the various persons of the Trinity are portrayed. Some of them are the same and some of them are different, but none of them indicate that any of them are not persons.Since none of the passages Pro brought up in his attempt to disprove the personhood of the HS did any such thing, and since Pro failed to respond to some of my arguments for the personhood of the HS, we can conclude that the HS is a person.The deity of JesusPro attempted to respond to some of my arguments for the deity of Jesus and to shore up some of his previous arguments against the deity of Jesus. Since he ignored some of my arguments for the deity of Jesus, those arguments stand, but let me just point out which arguments he ignored.He ignored my arguments from Colossians 1:15-17 showing that Jesus is the uncreated creator, he ignored my argument from Isaiah 44:24 showing that Jesus is God, he ignored my argument Isaiah 42:8, 48:11 and John 17:5, 5:23 showing that Jesus shares the glory of God and is therefore God, and he ignored my argument from Revelation 5:13 showing that Jesus is uncreated and receives the same glory and worship as the Father.Pro failed to understand my discussion about the different senses in which a person can be tempted, so let me explain again. There are two different senses in which a person can be tempted.1. Tempted in the sense of being persuaded to do wrong.2. Tempted in the sense of somebody trying to persuade to do wrong.When the Bible tells us that Jesus was tempted, it is uses temptation in the 2nd sense. When the Bible says the Father can't be tempted, it is using temptation in the 1st sense. Both the Father and the Son can be tempted in the 2nd sense, but neither the Father nor the Son can be tempted in the 1st sense. Pro's argument against the deity of Jesus was that Jesus can be tempted, but God can't, so Jesus isn't God. My point is that his argument fails since "temptation" has two different meanings. He claims I'm contradicting myself because he fails to recognize the two different meanings of temptation.Pro also failed to understand how his arguments from John 17:3, Ephesians 1:17, and 1 Peter 1:3 are question-begging, and in his attempt to explain himself further, he just continues to beg the question against the Trinity. My point is that all of these passage are consistent with the Trinity, and it is only by assuming that God is one person that he can argue that Jesus is not God. Let's look at John 17:3 one more time.John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."The "you" in this passage clearly refers to the Father. According to the doctrine of the Trinity, there is only one true God; the Father, Son, and HS are each that same God. So when it says the Father is the only true God, that does not exclude Jesus or the HS from also being the only true God. When John 17:3 distinguishes Jesus from "the only true God," it is only distinguishing Jesus from the Father since the "you" refers to the Father.If the passage said something like, "Only you [the Father] are the true God," then this would work as an argument against the Trinity, but since it's perfectly consistent with the Trinity as it is written, it does not work out as an argument against the deity of Jesus.Pro attempts to defend his case that Jesus died but God did not. I don't see how anything he said really salvages his argument. He tries to make a distinction between bodily death and death. But death just is when your body dies. "End of life," "death," and "bodily death," all mean the same thing.I explained that according to the doctrine of the incarnation, Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, and he died with respect to his human nature. He asked me to provide proof of the two natures. Well, if my arguments for the deity of Jesus are sound, that proves Jesus has a divine nature. Pro and I already agree that Jesus had a human nature because he was a physical human, born of a human woman.Pro responds to my John 1:3 argument by claiming the Logos is not Jesus. But the context of John 1 makes it perfectly clear that the Logos is Jesus. It says in verse 18 that the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. The logos refers unambiguously to Jesus. I also showed from Colossians 1:15-17 that Jesus himself was involved in creation, just as the Logos was in John 1:3. Pro is right that sometimes words like "word" and "wisdom" are personified, but in the context of John 1, the Logos refers plainly to a real person, namely Jesus.Thank you for the debate.