The Trinity is Biblical

I appreciate the challenge of this debate, and I hope it will be edifying to all parties involved. I believe adhering to the following principles is integral to proper exegesis: 1. The Bible should be interpreted literally whenever possible, unless such an interpretation contradicts the clear interpretation of a passage in either the immediate or the remote context (i.e., the rest of the Bible); if a contradiction does occur, it should be ascertained as to whether a figure of speech is being used, or if one is dealing with two different types of writing (e.g., poetry, hymn, song, etc . . .). By “clear”, I mean the literal understanding of the passage based on the words and grammar of the original languages, because correct interpretations cannot be finally grounded in any English translation. 2. The unclear passages of scripture must be interpreted in light of the clear ones; clear passages must be given more interpretive weight than unclear ones. Ceteris paribus, a doctrine should be defined by the clearest passages on a a subject, not by the controversial or disputed ones[1]. 3. Proper exegesis must be based on the historical use of language; words can only be defined in a way that both the Biblical and other historical sources from the period define them. 4. The context of a passage includes both the passage itself, but also the chapter, book, and other writings by the same author. 5. In order for a doctrine to be considered Biblical, it must either be clearly stated in the passage, or arrived at by sound logical reasoning (either deductive or inductive) based upon what is written in the text in question or a related text. 6. Exegesis is NOT defining a doctrine, then finding texts to support it, and finally reading an explanation consistent with it into texts that would otherwise contradict it (i.e., eisegesis). Rather, it is first reading a passage, interpreting it, and then defining doctrine based on its clear interpretation. I would also like to define my terms: - By the “Bible” I am referring to the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Old Testament) and the writings of the Apostles (i.e., the New Testament) - By the “Trinity”, I am referring to the traditional Christian teaching that "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not 3 Gods but 1 God" (taken from the Athanasian Creed) According to Robert Bowman (a Trinitarian apologist), in order for the doctrine of the Trinity to be true, all of the following propositions must be true; if even one of these propositions can be shown to be false, then the Trinity is false [2]: 1. There is one God (i.e., one proper object of religious devotion) 2. The one God is a single divine being, the LORD (Jehovah, Yahweh) 3. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God 4. The Son, Jesus Christ, is God 5. The Holy Spirit is God 6. The Father is not the Son 7. The Father is not the Holy Spirit 8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit In this debate I will be arguing that the Trinity is an unbiblical doctrine for two main reasons: the first is because the Bible describes and portrays Yahweh as one single person (which would automatically falsify #4 and #5); the second is that the Trinity cannot be considered a Biblical doctrine when none of the words essential to describing it are even in the Bible. In the first place, the Bible clearly describes Yahweh as a single person: firstly, he is specifically designated as a person; secondly, he is referred to, and refers to himself by thousands and thousands of singular personal pronouns; thirdly, he also declares that he ALONE created the heavens and the earth; fourthly, in every instance where prophets see the throne of Yahweh, he is always pictured as a single person; and finally, the anthropomorphic language of the Bible invariably portrays him as a single person. In the second place, not only is the word “Trinity” unbiblical, but so are all of the words which are ESSENTIAL to describing it (e.g., persons, substance, three-in-one, one-in-three, hypostasis, eternally begotten, homoousios). Also, God is never said to be three in any sense, and, the Bible never defines God as “one substance”. Now that I have stated my main arguments, I will endeavor to show the following concerning Pro’s arguments: firstly, that every proof text that Pro offers to support the Trinity involves reading into the text, as well as giving unbiblical definitions of words, and nterpreting the clear texts by the unclear; secondly, I will show that Pro cannot make a valid argument for the Trinity without equivocating the term “God”, and that in order to make his argument, he must commit the fallacy of equivocation, which necessarily invalidates his argument. Lastly (for clarification), Pro must provide his own definitions of the following terms: Trinity, person, being, and God (in the sense of the phrase “There is one God”). [1] A Latin phrase meaning "all other things being equal" [2] http://www.irr.org...