The Trinity is supported by the Hebrew Tanakh

Additional Rebuttals:"The trinity was firmly established before the creeds of the Catholic church". As previously stated, theories surrounding a trinity may have existed but it was the Catholic Church that officially adopted this belief (of a triune G-d) into its religious doctrine. The idea of a "Father", a "Son" and a "Holy Spirit" come directly from the Catholic Church. "The term "Trinity", while never explicitly stated in the Tanakh, still can be found'. This assertion rather contradicts its own point. It's entirely correct that there is no such term meaning "Trinity" with the Tanakh, but there are also no other terms alluding to it. The Tanakh is explicit in its portrayal that G-d is one whole entity; not one that is consisting of three different sides. This is exactly why Judaism has rejected the idea of a Trinity or a three-part G-d and has maintained the notion of there only being one G-d. Within the religion of Judaism, the worshipping of triune G-d would actually constitute as blasphemy and polytheism. This is how Judaism and senior figures within it view such a belief. Relating again to my main point that (1.) If any suggestion of a Trinity was outlined in the Tanakh. It would've been recognized by Judaism and incorporated within the Jewish belief system."As I stated earlier, Elohim is a generic term which can refer to several beings such as rulers, gods, angels. etc. But it is always plural in quantity. When used especially of the true G-d of Israel, it is used in the plural". Once again this does not entirely disaprove my argument. When terms such as "Elohim" are used in the Tanakh, it could also be a reference to G-ds angels. Elohim is a terrm that can be used in both plural and singular. It is simply not "always plural in quantity". In the round two and three I also highlighted the definitional variability; such as it in certain context meaning "unqiue" as well as "rulers" and spritual beings. In addition, I outlined that it can imply "magnificance" and "greatness". Even when used in the plural sense, "Elohim" still does not translate as "three-part" or "triune". 'While these are the singular names for G-d, none of these are used in Genesis 1-2. If G-d was one and only one, why didn't Genesis 1:1 read: "In the beginning (El or YHWH) created the heavens and the earth"?The inclusion of other names for G-d was to specify the nature of the Hebrew languae and the fact that G-d had not only one term for his name. "Elohim" being used in place for these terms does not suggest a three-part G-d. As I've just highlighted, there's a possibility that within the context of "Elohim" in this verse that reference was being made to G-ds angels, particularly when it later goes on to state: "our image". If anything this conveys the humility of G-d, but not the potential for him being triune. If that was the case, a more suitable term than "Elohim" would've been used in order to outline this tri-unity. A term that actually bares the meaning of "three" and "triune". "El" (the singular term for G-d) is included numerous times in the Tanakh. If G-d was part of a trinity, would this not stay consistently the same in terminology throughout the Tanakh? This G-d would not just develop from being triune to single. "In its full context, this commentary suggests that the Messiah in Judaism is divine in nature as the rest says: "When the tiume comes, the Holy One, blessed be He, will say: "I must create the Messiah--a new creation. As Scripture says, This day I have begotted thee--that is, on the very day of redemption, G-d will create the Messiah". Once more, the (full) context is not suggesting anything of a three-part nature. On the contrary to disapproving my response, it states: "I must create the Messiah, a new creation". Note that "new" and "creation" are explictly used. If the Messiah (I.E "Son") is an exisiting part of the trinity, why exactly are words such as "new" outlined? If the Messiah is "new" then he is clearly not an element of a three-part G-d. The use of the word "creation" also confirms that the Messiah will indeed be created. This refutes any potential existence of a trinity; particularly one with a "Son". A creation is something that has not already been in existence. If the Messiah already is part of a trinity, how can G-d possibbly go about creating him? Something that exisits is beyond creation, or being "new". As for Yesha'yahu verse 53, Judaism maintains a different approach in assessing the nature of the text. It is relevant in examining the coming Messianic age, however, is is predominatly a description of future sufferings for Jews. In terms of Christian teachings, the verses from Yesha'yahu 53 have been open to mistranslation and reinterpretation. When words such as "he" are used, it is the Jewish people that are being referenced to; not exclusively the Messiah. Here is an accurate Hebrew translation from Yesha'yahu 53:3:"He was despised, and foresaken of men, a man of pains and acquainted with affliction, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not". Yesha'yahu: 53:7:"He was oppressed, though he had humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as sheep that is before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth". These are not descriptions of the Jewish Messiah himself, rather they are prophesies of future Jewish mistreatment and persecution. Once more we arrive at the Hebrew language (particularly ancient) and its intricacies. When singular terms such as "he" are used it is actually the referencing people--therefore in essense it is plural. The "suffering servant" mentioned in Yesha'yahu 53 is again a future reference to the Jews themselves. (1.) http://www.hope-of-israel.org...(2.) http://www.aish.com...(3.) http://www.jewishawareness.org...(4.) http://jewsforjudaism.org...;