The Trinity is supported by the Hebrew Tanakh

RebuttalsAs displayed in round 2 of my argument, historical evidence suggests the concept of the Trinity did not take estalished form until the 13th century, with Roman Catholic endorsement. Ideas relating to a Trinity or similar ideas may have existed prior but they were not officially incorperated into any particular religion. A word meaning "Trinity" was never outlined in Biblical text nor is any indication or definition of "Trinity" highlighted within the Tanakh. Elohim can, and has been used for a number of things excluding G-d. In round 2 I alluded to the fact that "Elohim" can translate as "Unique" , "First" and so forth. When being used as reference to Moses it is implying that he is an individual (not a triple) person and that he can do something "great" that corresponds with one particular meaning of "Elohim". The verses of Parashat Shemot 4:10 and 22:8-9 are not suggesting a triunual G-d of any kind. In fact they provide no specifiction of three-natured G-d or a potential trinity within that G-d. Take Parshat Shemot (Exodus) 9 for instance: "For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges [plural]; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor."Is a tri-unual G-d implied in the the text? "Judges" could apply to a number of things; not necessarily all spiritual. In 4:10, the term "Adonai" is used. This word can translate as both L-rd and Master. It does not indicate another character or being of G-d. Rather, it is just another word to refer to G-d and apply his authority. The Hebrew language has a variety of other words that can be used as reference to G-d.Such as: 1.) Ya2.) HaShem3.) Adoshem4.) El 5.) Elah6.) Eloah7.) Elohim (as discussed)8.) El Roi9.) Eylon10.) El ShaddaiAs you can see, there's a variable numer of names that within the context of Hebrew all apply to G-d. Once again, none of these names consist with the theory of a tri-unual G-d. In verses Tehillim 45:6-8, a tri-unual G-d is not suggested. You state that it does not disaprove the theory, but it in no evidential context actually proves it. For the following reasons:1.) A three-part G-d is not stated. 2.) Only one deity, one G-d, is being addressed. 3.) No other aspects of the Trinity, I.E the "holy spirit" and the "son" are mentioned or additionally outlined. If a three-part G-d was being addressed, the other "aspects" of this G-d would most likely be acknowledged. But instead the verse is explicit in speaking to one, single G-d. With something as significant as tri-unual G-d, prophets and writers of the Tanakh would've observed this and made it much more clearly exactly what kind of form G-d dispalyed. This again reaches to the fact that Jews do not worship a trinity, because the Jewish G-d (the G-d of the Tanakh) is one G-d who inhabits one whole form; with no other tri-unual aspects and spirtual divisions. In Yesha'yahu verse 51:2, it specifically means one "Echad" and one single man. It may make referrence to the wife of Abram but that does not mean she is explictly part of the "Echad". For example, it does not say "I blessed them and made them many, it states: "I blessed him and made him many". If the verse was meaning both husband and wife, it wouldv've used such terminology. In Yechezkel 33:24, it is not referred to as a collective whole. The words are: "Arbram was only Echad (one) yet he possessed so much land; so to us who are many the land has been given as a possession. G-d did promise Abram and his descendants the land, but it is only Abram being mentioned in this verse. And Echad is primarily being used for him. The Rabbincal commentary you've highlighted does still not suggest or support the assumption of there being a trinity or a three-part G-d. Rather the Rabbi states: "suffering is divided into three portions" this does not translate as: G-d is divided into three seperate parts or: "G-d is a tri-unual entity". As his further statements imply, he is referring to forms of generational suffering made on the Jewish people. Nowhere, he is implying that G-d is tri-unual. It should be noted that B'rit Hadasha (New Testament) verse does not apply to the discussion for they are not part of the Tanakh, or the Jewish religion. The debate is resolution states: The Trinity is supported by the Hebrew Tanakh, not "the Trinity is supported by the Hebrew Tanakh and B'rit Hadasha. Judaism does not accept or believe in Christ. Which confirms the Jewish rejection of the Trinity in its teachings that "the Son" is the Christian Messiah. Moreover, it's quite possible that the authors of the B'rit Hadasha took inspiration from Tehillim 110:1. 1.) http://www.shamash.org...2.) http://www.myjewishlearning.com...3.) http://education-portal.com...4.) http://www.aish.com...5.) http://www.chabad.org...