To begin with, I do accept video evidence, but the timestamp in the link my opponent gave does not immediately precede a pro-Trinity argument, and it is unreasonable to expect me or anyone else to watch an entire video of nearly an hour in length to retrieve the material they apparently wish to present. Therefore, I will not be addressing in this round whatever contention that video was intended to convey, although I will gladly do so in the third round should my opponent present it more accessibly.
Before I directly explain how the Bible verses my opponent presents cannot be regarded as definitive proof that the Holy Bible supports the Trinity, I should mention the classic mantra of real estate agents: "Location, location, location." This can easily be adapted for literary analysts as, "Context, context, context." I believe that my explanation of each verse will be enough to persuade the audience to my position.
Now, I analyze the verses my opponent presented in favor of their position, in the order they presented them.
1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
> Comment: Of the quotes my opponent presents, this is by far the most problematic for my position because it is the only one which explicitly affirms anything like the Trinity. However, I would like to offer a non-Trinitarian explanation: that, by "these three are one," what is meant is that these three are all in alliance. Going from "these three are one" to "these three are working together" may seem like a grand leap of logic, but I invoke Occam's Razor in favor of this interpretation. Which is more likely: 1. That these entities are simultaneously three existences and one existence, which violates basic and intuitive logic? Or 2. That "these three are one" is a figure of speech, probably meant to sound cryptic and imposing?
Matthew 28:18: "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen."
> Comment: To my reading, nothing in these verses states that Jesus is God. What it does state is that God has given Jesus authority on Heaven and Earth, but acknowledging someone's authority is clearly different from ascribing Godhood to them. For example, see Matthew 22:21: "Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”" I contend that, by analogy, if Matthew 28:18 is proof that Jesus is God, then Matthew 22:21 is proof that Caesar is God, since the Bible attributes "authority" to both of them, and this is an obvious absurdity. It would be more accurate to consider Jesus as a viceroy or demiurge based on his statement in the former verse.
Neither does baptizing someone in the name of "the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," by itself, prove that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. It is possible to derive that meaning by implication, but it could just as well be said that the Son and the Holy Spirit are simply mentioned without being attributed with Godhood, and the Occam's Razor argument presented for the previous quote weighs the scales in favor of the latter position.
Psalms 139:7: Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
> Comment: Frankly, I have no idea how this is supposed to support the Trinity. It implies that the Spirit is inescapable, but then again, the same is in practice true of obviously non-divine existences like time and space. One could also contemplate that the phrase "Your Spirit" implies that the "Spirit" is possessed by God, and therefore subservient to and created by Him.
Colossians 2:9: "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
> Comment: These is easily the second most problematic quote my opponent confronts me with, but I believe that I can weather this assault. Firstly, I do not believe that it is necessarily accurate to interpret the word "fullness" literally. From context, it could easily mean "blessing" or "mission." Secondly, even if the reader were to concede based on this quote that Jesus Christ is God, Con still would have failed to evince the Trinity proper since they have not incontrovertibly established the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This must also be done.
John 8:24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
> Comment: Here I think it is reasonable to interpolate "I am he" as "I am from Him." John 14:28 explicitly establishes that the Son is inferior to the Father. Simultaneously accepting that statement and accepting that John 8:24 proves that Jesus is God is to violate the Occam's Razor argument I have previously mentioned. However, the reader may believe that this verse is explicit proof of the Trinity and therefore overcomes that razor by establishing itself as more likely than the alternatives, or by completely negating the alternatives. I would not blame them for that.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
> Comment: Analogical deduction clearly demonstrates that this verse cannot be proof of Jesus' divinity. See Genesis 1:27: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." If one's being in the image of God is proof of one's Godhood, then all men are God!
Philippians 2:6: "who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God"
> Comment: If being in the image of God does not necessarily mean being God, then I do not think that being in the form of God should mean being God either. Also, this verse only states that Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, which implies that Jesus is God, but it does not directly state it. It could be referring to an unrealized and perhaps impossible situation.
Conclusion: I believe that my opponent has presented Scriptural excerpts which offer a good argument for the divinity of Jesus Christ, although the audience is implored to ponder my counter-interpretations as well. However, Con has definitely failed to establish the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, I am increasingly tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit is not an agent in its own right, but a metaphor for God's omnipotence. I am not making this into a cornerstone of my position, so Con need not refute it, but they are invited to do so.
I warmly await your reply and the final round, YeshuaBought.