And no, of course homoousios is not found in the Bible, trinitarian terminology most definitely can not be found in the Bible, but neither can the philosophy or the concept.
The articles I posted refute your claim that the Trinity isn't in the Bible. Also: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/triad-of-texts-nature-of-jesus.html
Though the article here doesn't mention Hebrews 1, it comments on the various passages utilized in the chapter, the three categories laid out, the supremacy, deity and messiahship of Christ.
Acts 3:13 itself goes on to refute you: "13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16 By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see."
I know not of any prophet who himself is called the author of life, Only God is called that. We can see here the Father, raised the son from the dead, glorifying him. Jesus is referred to in this context as the author of life, a reference to Jesus bringing all things into existence. So much for using the context against me. I don't deny that the contexts of the Old Testament make it clear that YHWH alone is God, Trinitarians agree with that statement every step of the way, so you bringing those texts to the table does no damage to the Trinity. I am still waiting for a response to the comment by James White that I raised.
God is spirit (John 4:24), but never once does the Bible delve into the ontological nature or substance/essence of God, yet this is the very foundation of trinitarian doctrine. Please, show me even one single verse even remotely hinting about the divine "God-sustance". You can do it trinitarian style, with partial verses taken out of context and glued together with other passages. You still can't find it! Because it is not there. And since trinitarian doctrine states that the very nature of their alleged oneness is in substance, that is how Deu. 6:4 have to be defined from a trinitarian perspective.
John 4:24 is a reference to who the true followers of Jesus are, namely those who worship in spirit and in truth. The Bible shows us who God is, namely who he is, whether he is Trinitarian or not (I contend he is the former.).
I'm a monotheist, you're not. You pay lipservice to the concept. I believe in one God. You believe in three. Oh, sorry, I forgot to take the necessary semantic detour. You believe in "three "person" that are each fully God". (Yeah, that solves the problem. Wonder if God will for for it when that day comes?) If trinitarianism really is monotheism (which it isn't) why did trinitarian apologists feel he need to invent the term "trinitarian monotheism"?
Correction, I am a monotheist. Don't give me this rubbish that of "I forgot to take the necessary semantic detour". One God, Three divine persons, one being, One YHWH, That's the Trinity, is NOT that hard. Using Trinitarian Monotheism AND Unitarian Monotheism is just another way of distinguishing between the two monotheism types.
Getting back to Deuteronomy 6:4 above, A disagreement I have with my fellow Trinitarians is this, The Shema DOES NOT talk about Trinitarianism OR Unitarianism, God's nature is NEVER addressed in the Shema, it is addressing how many gods exist. Nevertheless, The Trinity can be asserted based on the biblical context. It is the Unitarian position that must establish itself by ripping verses out of context.
Triad: "a group of three, especially of three closely related persons or things"
Triad teaches there are THREE Gods, Trinity teaches ONE God. Try again Doris.
According to trinitarian doctrine the holy spirit is God, the son is God, the Father is God. They are all fully God in their own capacity, they're not manifestations of the same person (modalism), they are distinct "persons" (they're only God when you don't count them of put them in a numerical context), and they don't constitute one God as a whole (partialism). That's the literal definition of polytheism.
Polytheism teaches there are multiple Gods, the Trinity does not. While i'll give you credit for making clear they are persons, not manifestations, as we agree modalism is heresy, That still doesn't excuse you of misrepresenting the Trinity and claiming it's polytheistic.
The trinitarian instinct to deny they're polytheists is an admission of guilt and you don't even get it. Would would you even deny it if you don't ackowledge the Bible teaches a God that is numerically one.
I need not repeat myself on the Shema. Can you show me where God is taught to be numerically one?
"Perhaps it is you who are worshiping an idol Doris" That's an interesting allegation since I have the exact same God as Jesus; the Father ALONE. Your God is not the Father ALONE. So how are you following Jesus now?
I am still waiting for a proper response to the subject of the worship of Jesus in the papers. True Christians have "the same God as Jesus" as you put it, which is the Father. However, as pointed out in my papers, especially the article response to droptozro, Because Jesus is a man, he would relate to the Father as his God, which he does numerous times. But also made claims about himself which only God is able to claim. The Father said "This is my son, listen to him". and considering the fact Jesus made claims about himself that NO man can claim, It tells you that he is YHWH God, though is not the Father. So yes I am following Jesus and I extend that invitation to you to repent of your heresy.
So why do you have a God next to YHWH? Don't you know that's a crime? ANd you're misrepresenting His name too, yet another violation. And angel means messenger. So your argument is that the messenger is not a messenger... well, as you see it holds no water.
No, One person (God the Son), Is next to another (God the Father). No violation or sin there.
Let me explain:
"Are you telling me, that the angel is a mere representative and is not God? I did say earlier that context determines if the angel is God or not and that speaking on behalf of God, is not what makes the angel God, that is important. We need to be careful when we look at the nature of the angel of the LORD. It is important to remember that Angel doesn't mean necessarily a created divine entity, Angel comes from angelos which means messenger and the Hebrew for messenger is malak."
I do NOT deny that Angel means messenger, my point is that the particular messenger in the Old Testament, in my articles on the angel of YHWH, that there is one particular angel who is ontologically God: