Think about this:
Every concept that God has desired to be delivered has been clearly offered in the Bible. Yet not one word about 'trinity'.
As many people have already noted, the trinitarian doctrine has nothing to do with a specific word in the Bible. It was a term/phrase adopted by the church to succinctly summarize the doctrines of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
I believe that it would have been offered distinctly and without controversy if God had desired for us to follow it.
The only controversy around the "trinity" is that which is created by man re-interpreting the texts that say Jesus is God. There are also "controversies" around doctrines as elementary as whether Jesus really suffered and died for our sins. That doesn't make them unbiblical.
Love, forgiveness, worship, these are offered clearly.
Anybody who denies whatever scripture doesn't fit with their desired interpretation could also deny each of these.
But from the beginning of the Bible till the end, it is clear that God is 'one' God. Christ openly states that His Father is God. That God is His Father. That He is the Son of the Living God.
If it is so clear from "beginning to end," why is the first word used for "God" (Elohim) in the Bible a plural word that is treated as singular?
And Christ openly speaks of the Father: God, being 'greater than the Son'. That the one that sends someone is greater than the one being sent.
As has been said already many times, same in essence, different in function. The Father is the authoritative/headship figure of the Godhead.
He now sits at the right hand of God. That in an of itself ought to clearly show that the Father: God, is not Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And they are 'not equal' in any manner. The Father: God, is greater than the Son. So they cannot be two persons that make up 'one' God. There is only 'one' God and He is uncompounded. Singular. The one and only in which there is no other 'like'.
There is no scriptural support for the claim that Jesus cannot be equal with God in any manner.
God is uncompounded. No trinitarian would disagree with that, as has already been said. This supposed belief in compoundedness is a straw man that you continually shoot at.
Godhead isn't a 'mystery' to those who God reveals it's definition. God is the HEAD. He is the 'head' of Christ as Christ is the head of man. We are not given the exact details of exactly how Christ was 'begotten'. But we are instructed that He was: begotten. That means that Christ has a 'beginning' unlike God who has 'no beginning'. At some point in history, Christ was 'begotten'. He 'became' the Son of God.
We've been over this ad nauseam. But again, if this is the case, please explain Hebrews 1:1-10, John 1:1-14, John 17:5, John 8:58, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Revelation 1, for starters, and without reinterpreting every word in there that you don't like.
And when here on this earth, He made it perfectly clear that the power He exhibited and the words He spoke were 'not His own', but given Him by the Father: God. That means that in order to be given, there had to be a time 'before' possession.
Blessings,
MEC
This is your interpretation of Jesus words, which you continually preach, contrary to the rest of scripture, to anyone who you think will listen. Jesus did not say "when" these words were given, but because we are humans to us the concept "given" implies a time before. Similarly, because we are humans, we find it difficult to conceive of a God who exists as one being and three persons. But our conceptions of time and being are limited by our finiteness of being and finiteness of understanding.
God Himself declared that He is beyond our comprehension in His dialect with Job. Yet, for some reason, today there are still those who fight this and believe we can comprehend all of God... And this always leads to heresy.