The Bible Does Not Support The Doctrine of The "Holy Trinity"

You brought up a lot of interesting points that made me question a few things. However, after a closer examination, I still believe the Bible supports the Trinity. Let’s see why: Before we begin, I’d like to remind everybody of what I said in the first round, “The Trinity is a classic case where there are few “direct” proofs, but many many deductive or indirect proofs, which can hardly be dismissed by any person who accepts the inspiration of Holy Scripture: God's revelation. " Let's begin: 1A. Picture Allow me to apologize for the link not properly working. I wasn't really looking for you to refute the picture, I was just trying to demonstrate what the Trinity is. If the link doesn't work, please let me know in the comments and I'll send you a picture via message. 1. . https://www.gotquestions.org... -> It's the first example picture shown. 2A. Matthew 28:19-20 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. ” My friend believes that this verse supports his claim; namely, because "there is a separation between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The word "and" shows a separation between Father and Son. "And" connects words of the same part of speech, clauses or sentences that are that are to be formed jointly. A father and a son are not the same people. The Holy Ghost is the law, it is not an actual spirit. " His argument is somewhat surprising but also non-sequitur. At first, it looks like a pretty good contention against the Trinity, however, Pro’s point in using the word “and” highlights my point. Father + (and) Son + (and) Holy Spirit = God. You don’t say “. .. baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit…” This isn’t an argument, but moreover an issue of grammatical correctness. As for my friend’s remarks that the Holy Spirit isn’t a person, I disagree greatly. Which leads me to my second issue: 3A. Acts 7:51-53 - "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. " My opponent believes that this verse "explains what the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is. " However, this passage never implicitly or explicitly endorses such a position. "the resistance made by these persons was not to the Spirit of God in them, of which they were destitute, but to the Spirit of God in his ministers, in his apostles, and particularly in Stephen; nor to any internal operation of his grace, but to the external ministry of the word, and to all that objective light, knowledge, evidence, and conviction that it gave of Jesus's being the Messiah. .. so that this passage is no proof of the resistance of the Holy Spirit. .. " Id recommend looking at the following link which explains what the Holy Spirit is:1. . https://www.gotquestions.org...;Moreover, let's move to my next objection. 4 A-B. 4A. Acts 7:38-39 - "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: 39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt," 4B. Exodus 19:5 "Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. " I don't really understand your argument here - please clarify in the next round. 5A. Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, . . . (Cf. 61:2; Jesus applies this to Himself in Lk 4:16-30) Your argument seems to be logically invalid. If it's the "spirit" (as you suggest) of God's word it would be lowercased - but it's not - it's uppercased; signifying that it is a person. Your Biblical evidence is signifying to a spirit (LC) not a Spirit (UC). 6A. Luke 3:21-22 . . . when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, [22] and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee, I am well pleased. ” (Cf. Mt 3:13-17)My opponent's evidence is rejected as Act 7:51-53 does not explain what the Holy Spirit is but rather shows that Christians should get circumcised - and not be doing this, is against what God asks. "Christ sits on the right hand of God (Ps 110:1; Matt 22:44). So Christ couldn’t sit at the right hand of Himself. Acts 7:55 says Christ is standing on the right hand of God; not standing on the right hand of Himself because that does not make sense. " Here is a link that provides a thorough analysis of your objection: 1. . https://www.gotquestions.org...;7A. Romans 15:30 I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, (cf. Eph 2:18)The word "Spirit," here, evidently does not refer to the Holy Spirit, for he adds, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit. " He refers here, probably, to the doctrine which he had been teaching in opposition to their notions and desires. [2]8A. 1 Corinthians 6:11 . . . justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (Cf. 1 Pet 1:2)Refer to 7A objection. 9A. 1. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Well, it was God the Father (Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:10); it was also Jesus Himself (Jn 2:19; 10:17-18); and it was the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:11). I think it's important when we talk about Christ, we must distinguish between Heavenly form and Earthly form. My opponent seems to be correlating Heavenly to Earthly form; which is a logical fallacy. As for the Timothy verse, I recommend looking at this link that demonstrates my point further: 1. . https://www.biblestudytools.com...;10A. Who gave the new covenant? The Father (Jer 31:33-34); Jesus (Heb 8:1-13; 10:29; 12:24; 13:20); the Holy Spirit (Heb 10:15-17). Again, for your objection to the Holy Spirit, read the document from 3A. I don't really understand the rest of your argument; in fact, it seems (from what I can tell) you agree with me that the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and the Father are three in one. 11A. Who sanctifies believers? The Father (1 Thess 5:23); Jesus (Heb 13:12); the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1:2). I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how your contention defends your position. 12A. Who is the creator? The Father (Gen 1:1; Is 44:24; Acts 17:24; Eph 3:9); Jesus (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:8, 10); the Holy Spirit (Job 33:4). Again, my opponent mixes Heavenly form and Earthly form terminology. He states, "Christ was created before the earth was formed. " Yes, Christ was formed on Earth, but not in Heaven. Also, "The term “beginning,”. .. does not suggest a commencement in time for Jesus Christ. The Greek word that is rendered “beginning”. .. is arche. The term is employed in various senses in Greek literature. It may refer to the “beginning” of something if there is evidence available that the “something” indeed had a beginning, e. g. , in “the beginning of the gospel” (Mk. 1:1). But this certainly does not exhaust the meaning of the expression. " Conclusion: I believe my friend hinges a lot on the premise that the Spirit "must be the law". I highly recommend looking at the links I provided for you that describe what the Holy Spirit is.