The Trinity is supported by the Hebrew Tanakh

Rebuttals:"The Catholic Church adopting the Trinity doesn't imply that it originated there".As I have previously stated, ideas surrounding a Trinity or a triune G-d may have exsited beforehand but it was the Catholic Chucrh that developed the concept and incorperated it as an official part of their doctrine. No concepts surrounding a trinity or three-part G-d actually derive from the Tanakh or the religion of Judaism. As for the term "trinity", once again it is not found in Biblical scripture. The same is said for any other terms relating to "trinity" or three divine persons that are denoted together in the form of G-d. The term itself does indeed have Latin origins, "trinity" derives from "trinitas" and was first found in "Theophilus of Antioch" in around A.D. 180. Within it was the following passage:There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever". (P.G., X, 986)This is an explict reference and description of what a trinity is--nothing similar can be found in the Tanakh--in which the only evidences are presented are terms such as "Elohim" and "Echad" are used as examples of a potential trinity. However, as neither of these words--or any other resembling terms--translate as "triune", they are simply not proof of a triune existence of G-d. Another example is when the trinity was when the Roman Catholic and Orthdox Church councils (Eastern and Western Churches) brought the trinity doctrine into Christianity. At the time, those who voted that it be introduced to the Catholic admitted its lack of Biblical--both Tanakh and B'rit Hadasha--origin. The theologians that wrote the "Catholic Encyclopedia" admitted that there was no real indication of a trinity in the Tanakh (Old Testament). "Con brings up the argument that Elohim in Genesis could have referred to the angels. In previous rounds, i gave scholarly commentaries on why the alternative explanation of angels being Elohim isn't plausible. I will now explain how Elohim when referring to the God of Israel could not possibly refer to angels".Once more, as "Elohim" do not mean "triune" or "trinity"; it is indeed plausible. Not even the word of "our" which appears sugests "triune" or "three-part". "The first problem is that angels lack the ability to create. No where in the Tanakh do we find verses indicating that angels can create". If angels can create then it would contradict Isaiah 45:18. My main point was it was a possibility of inclusion of angels. Essentially they are helpers of G-d so therefore such a sugestion is not entirely unfounded. Within the context of the Jewish understanding of G-d, this has a higher probability than the world being created by a G-d of triune nature and this G-d creating human beings in his triune image. As for Yesha'yahu 45:18, it fully states:For this is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens, he is G-d;He who fashioned and made the earth,He founded it;He did not create it to be empty,But formed it to be inhabited—He says:“I am the Lord, and there is no other". This verse doesn't exactly support or outline a three-part G-d, either. G-d is clearly stated as being a single being. In particular, "there is no other" confirms that G-d is simply not part of the trinity. The reason why it states "no other", is because there is "no other". The Tanakh teaches that is is G-d, and that G-d is part of one whole. If with G-d (potentially) being plural of a majesty, once more, it doesn't indicate plural in the triune. "The fact is that it's not consistently used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Elohim in the plural as also used as well from the very beginning of Genesis. The Trinity states that God is a collective whole". If G-d was a triune entity, naturally the term "Elohim' would be consistently used as (one would presume) he would remain as part of a trinuty and not alter between triune and single. However, as "Elohim" is not a translation for "triune"--this isn't a possibility. Moreover, the Trinity may state that G-d is a collective whole but (1.) The Trinity is not part of the Hebrew Scripture and (2.) The integral teaching of Trinity is that within G-d also consists the "The Son" and the "Holy Spirit". So, it's not G-d is one whole. It's: G-d is part of one whole that is also consisting of two other central entities. "In the context of Isaiah 53, the Messiah would be cut off or killed from his people and rise again. This chapter is referring to the incarnation of the Messiah into the body of a man". In Yesha'yahu 53, the context is not that the Messiah would be cut off or killed from his people to rise again. Such an interpretation does not correspond with the Jewish view of the Messiah and what his purpose will consist of. The ancient writings of Sephardic Rabbi Maimonides offer are more accurate insight into who the Messiah will be, and when he will come: "The main benefit of that time (the Messianic Age) will be that they (Israel) shall have rest from the subjugation of the nations who have prevented us from performing the commandments. Wisdom will be increased as it says “The world shall be filled with knowledge (of HaShem as the water fills the ocean)” (Yesha'yahu 11:9) Wars will cease as it says, “And nation will not lift up sword against other nations.” (Yesha'yahu 2:4) There will be in those days great perfection and we shall merit the life of the world to come. The Messiah will then die and his son will rule in his place and so his grandson."Judaism strongly believes that the Messiah will be a leader, one that will bring about about peace for the nation of Israel. During the the time of the Messiah all wars will cease and nation will not lift up sword against other nations. The Jewish view is not that the Messiah will suffer and be rejected, but that he will prosper and die of an old age. It's also not suggested that he will return, rather his descendants will continue his work. So when Yesha'yahu states: "4 Surely He has borne our griefsAnd carried our sorrows;Yet we esteemed Him stricken,Smitten by God, and afflicted.5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,He was bruised for our iniquities;The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,And by His stripes we are healed.6 All we like sheep have gone astray;We have turned, every one, to his own way;And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,Yet He opened not His mouth;He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,So He opened not His mouth.8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,And who will declare His generation?For He was cut off from the land of the living;For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.9 And they made His grave with the wicked"But with the rich at His death,Because He had done no violence,Nor was any deceit in His mouth.10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;He has put Him to grief.When You make His soul an offering for sin,He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,For He shall bear their iniquities.12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,Because He poured out His soul unto death,And He was numbered with the transgressors,And He bore the sin of many,And made intercession for the transgressors". It is not believed to be a reference or a prophesy of the Messiah. Particularly as earlier on Yesha'yahu is predicting how the Jewish people will be sent into exile. In chapter 52, for example, he also describes Israel as being "oppressed without cause"--and "taken away". It's largely upheld by Jews that Yesha'yahu 53 is just in fact a continuation of and a further description of Yesha'yahu 52. For another few following reasons:(1.) The Messiah will not be striken or afflicated. This could only apply to the people of the nation of Israel.(2.) The Messiah will not wounded for "our" transgressions, once more, this could only be in reference to the Jewish people themselves. (3.) The Messiah will not be oppressed, if anything--the Messiah will introduce an end to oppression. (4.) The Messiah will not bare the "sin" of others. In fact, Judaism believes that no one should have to suffer or die because of anothers "sin". Even the disciples of Jesus, did not new view these passages as Messianic reference. Sources:http://jewsforjudaism.org...http://www.catholicbible101.com...http://jewishroots.net...