The Trinity is Biblical

Rebuttals, My opponent referenced Saint Augustine. according to Wikipedia he was born in year 354. Hundreds of years after Christ. This is consistent with the information I provided in my opening argument which states that "the Doctrine of the Trinity was not established until the fourth or fifth century" My opponent says: "In so far as physical (whatever constitutes for physical for the Father, and Spirit) is concerned, they are a Trinity of three persons. It is rather is Geistes that they are One and the Same." First I would like to note that the word "Geistes" is not found on dictionary.com, Merriam-webster, or oxford dictionaries. This is exceptionally unfortunate as this is the last round, and there is no way to agree on a definition of this word. I am under the impression my opponent means Geist. Geist "Depending on context it can be translated as the English words mind, spirit, or ghost,"(1) I am assuming that my opponent is implying that they are literally one mind, as he says they are not physically as he admits. A: I again reference John 17:20-22 "20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" If I am to accept what my opponent has said, then apparently every on who believes on the words of the apostles, the apostles themselves, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all become "one" in a Geistes way. I do believe that they are of one mind, as in of the same purpose, but they have separate minds, as in the Father has his mind and the Son his, Though the Son submits to the will of the father. B:I will again reference Luke 22 "41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone"s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." These verses confirm what I have concluded. That they have separate and distinct minds, but the Son submits to the Father. C: Mathew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Clearly the Bible teaches they are not literally the same mind. My opponent References John 1:14 which reads: " 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." He then concludes: "So we know that Jesus was immortal, in so far as He too was always there. We also know, beyond doubt, from Scripture that Jesus was in fact God. While Jesus was not the Father, and the Father was not Jesus, they were One is Geistes" This verse confirms that Jesus is the "only begotten of the Father." It does not confirm the doctrine of the trinity at all. My opponent goes on to say: "Similarly we have John's testimony again when he says: 'We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding to know the True One, and "to be in the true one", in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and life everlasting'. (John 5:20) This once again shows how Jesus is in fact one with God the Father. Jesus was both Man and God, he was separate from the Father, and yet connected in Spirit." Here is the text from 1 John 5:20 "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." Again, after reading the verse, it does not articulate the doctrine of the trinity at all. My opponent says: "Another reference is to the sameness of the Father and of Jesus when the Bible says: 'whatever the Father does, the Son also does likewise" (John 5:19); one more reference of sameness is: 'As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the son gives life to whom he wills'. (John 5:21). In the Greek the possession of "he" is given to the Son meaning the Son does in fact have Will." Again I will provide the text John 5:19-21 "19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." All one has to two is replace the two names to see this does not imply the trinity. "I can do nothing of myself but what I see you do: for what things soever you doeth, these also will I do likewise." Nothing in there seems to imply that they are "one." My opponent concludes: "So in fact it is pointless to argue that the Bible does not support the Trinity when even (I Corinthians 11:3) state: 'But the head of Christ is God"." Here is the text 1 Corinthians 11:3 " But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." If as my opponent has stated that God being the head of Christ makes them one (trinity) Then are not men and women also in the trinity via this verse. It seems my opponent has not read the verses that he is citing. To apply this the way he has, it would have to apply through the whole verse. My opponent says: "I leave with one question, if my opponent doubts the Trinity is biblical then he needs to provide an alternate. Pray tell, if Jesus is not the Son of God, who is Jesus? If Jesus is not God, or does not resemble God then what was he? My opponent needs to answer these questions for I have provided sufficient evidence of the Biblicality of the Trinity." I would be happy to present my personal beliefs to you through messages or perhaps through the forum. However, for the purpose of this debate, the resolution is "The Trinity is Biblical." I have taken the side of con and have shown that the trinity is not biblical, It would be beyond the construct of this debate for me to offer an alternative. Extended arguments: In round two I presented this argument which was not rebutted. A: When did the Doctrine of the Trinity become common? The following sources agree that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not established until the fourth or fifth century. "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established ... into Christian life ... prior to the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."(2) "Indeed no less a source than the stalwart harper"s Bible Dictionary records that "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries in not to be found in the New testament." (3) "Concerning Old Testament scriptures, "theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tracts .... to cite texts like Genesis 1:26 .... as proof of plurality in God." And "... in the New Testament the doctrine of the Trinity is not enunciated ..." but only "deduced from a collocation of passages ...." The Trinity, therefore, did not " ... reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God, it was, on the contrary, a divination from this teaching.(2) The doctrine of the trinity was not taught or accepted widely by Christians until around the fourth or fifth century. Conclusion: At the beginning of my opponents last round he stated "I feel that my opponent does not have a clear conception of the Trinity." On the contrary I feel as though he does not have a clear conception of what is taught in the bible. Thank you again Ajab for accepting this debate. It has become clear when you read the verses in the bible that the trinity is not taught. At best it is "deduced from collocation of passages" however, clearly it is not "enunciated" in the Bible. The Trinity clearly is not Biblical Thank you all who take the time to read and vote. All verses from KJV (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.auburn.edu... (3) https://www.lds.org...