Yes the word trinity isn’t in the Bible.

…But that’s not the right angle to address the argument against the multiplicity of “persons” Christianity acclaims as the “Holy Trinity”.

There are many terms not in the Text which nevertheless describe concepts that are in the Text. Or ways in which we must view the Text in order not to misinterpret it. Hermeneutics for example: the scientific study of interpretation. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura: the requirement that the Scriptures serve as our ultimate authority.
These are just two such notions that are necessary yet unnamed.

And indeed many different words have found their way into the translations folk simply refer to as “The Bible” which do not rightly belong. Such as “God” in place of Elohim, which ought rightly be rendered as “Mighty One”. Or “Jesus” - the final product (for now anyway) of filtering the Name of Yeshua through English, French, Latin and Greek. Or using “LORD” in that abhorrent tradition of replacing the Divine Name of the Most High.

The list goes on and on…not to mention terms which define the same thing or near enough to those they purport to be translations of yet are simply anglicized Latin words from the Vulgate version: Disciple, Scripture, Iniquity, Gentile etc.

Trinity as a word, not being in the Bible is not the issue. Trinity not being in the Bible as a concept is the issue.

And it is a great mistake for nonTrinitarians to make, trying to argue from the Bible against trinitarianism since the concept did not arise until long after the close of the Canon.

Trinitarianism is a retcon in itself. It is invented in after years and read backwards into the Book.

The theologian commonly considered to be the first to articulate any Trinitarian concept is Theophilus of Antioch around about 180 A.D. In his work "To Autolycus" (Book II, Chapter 15), Theophilus relates the relationship between the Father, the Son or Logos, and the Holy Spirit.

There are some scholars who argue that even earlier Ignatius of Antioch in about 110 A. D. hinted at a Trinitarian understanding in his letters, particularly to the Ephesians in chapter 18. But this seems a late backformation aswell,

The most widely accepted candidate for the earliest Trinitarian description is Justin Martyr in 155 A. D. In his "First Apology" in Chapter 13, Justin described the Logos, the Word as a distinct entity from the Father, yet still divine. He also mentioned the Holy Spirit as a separate entity. Though this too most likely is a late interpolation of the words of Justin, as the Trinitarian doctrine would not be conceptualized until Tertullian much later.

These earlier theologians didn't use the exact term "Trinity," either just like its absence from the Text of Scripture, but their writings laid the groundwork for later triune theology or for its excuse. And yet no one tries to argue that since they never said Trinity that they did not believe or teach trinitararianism, or an early form of it. It’s likely these earlier preachers had not yet thought too deeply on the matter as a distinct doctrine since Scripture never bothers to explain the Almighty or His nature.

It was not till around the late 2nd to early 3rd century, particularly in his works written between 200 and 215 A.D. that Tertullian, a late Christian theologian, began to conceptualize a Trinitarian position as a fleshed out concept. His most explicit articulation of the Trinity appears in “Adversus Praxean” (Against Praxeas), likely written around 213 A.D., where he defends the concept of the Divinity as being one being in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—using the term *trinitas* (Trinity) for the first time in Latin theology.

Emphasis - LATIN theology.

His works, such as *Apologeticus* written about 197 A.D., possibly show embryonic Trinitarian ideas, but his mature formulation emerged in response to modalist “heresies” like Praxeas', solidifying around 210–215 A.D.

Trinitarianism is Tertullian’s baby. It is not born of biblical parentage nor does it bear a Scriptural bloodline. Like an evil plot it was hatched in the corrupted mind of this Greco-Roman man. Formed of heathen philosophy and a lifetime of learning in the pagan arts of erudition and subsequently superimposed upon the Christian Canon.

As all Christian doctrine is and ever was, trinitarianism is a work of syncretism. Not pulled from the pantheons of previous pagan peoples (as some ultracrepidarians have claimed) but a new thing made by mixing Greek philosophy with a bent Roman view of Christian theology, it formed a hybrid chimera-like monster to terrorize the world, or mayhaps more aptly, medusan or basilian since this perverted doctrine petrifies all peoples who gaze upon her hideous visage.

Our Bible - meaning the manuscripts of as oldest and best as can be acquired in our time, not the nicely printed, leather bound, translations of translations of copies of copies you probably own - our Bible says YHWH (not some generic LORD of late British reimagining in medieval feudalistic fashion), that He is our Elohim (not an old title of Anglo-Saxon idols and other supernatural entities they called “God”).

And it says that YHWH is One.

One. Not three. Just One.

One. Not Three-in-One. Just One.

Though, Echad.

Not Yachid.

The Bible states that YHWH is Echad. That is to say a plurality of oneness or a complex unity.

If we have a bias for our late Christian doctrine being true and are seeking a reason to allow it to be read into the Text of Sacred Scripture, here is the only opening actually available by that twisted logic.

YHWH is called Echad as opposed to Yachid. Yachid being one with no complexity or muchness to it.

Simply one.

One rock. One fork. One cup.

But Echad is used to describe in Scripture not only the Almighty but such entities as the Nation of Israel and the people of Israel, (not always the same thing). Echad is used to describe a marriage and also used of a cluster of grapes.

If we begin at the end with Tertullian’s Greco-Roman trinitarian philosophy concocted over 200 years after the advent of Yeshua our Messiah in this world, and work backwards to the beginning of Scripture reading the Sh’ma in that late false light, we will most assuredly see the possibility.

“Since Echad is a plurality of oneness and a complex unity and so is the conception of the trinity, therefore the Most High being Echad must be a trinity.”

Such is the imaginings in the minds of these theological monsters. But this is a faulty syllogism.

YHWH is Echad. Yes….And yet so is marriage. So are nations. And so are grape clusters. Each of these are not the same kinds of complex unities. None of them share the same exact plurality of ones. (Not to mention the same people who insist on the Almighty being trinitarian because Echad is a complex unity also insist upon marriage being always monogamous, though it is too Echad.)

If the Bible said that the Almighty is trinity or triunity, then we could deduce that He is therefore Echad. But it is a logical fallacy to infer the reverse, that because He is declared by Scripture to be Echad that He is therefore the “Holy Trinity”.

1+1+1=1 is just bad math.

…And for those folk who attempt to be clever saying “No… it’s not 1+1+1=1. It’s 1x1x1=1.”

Well guess what? You’re airing not only your theological ignorance but your mathematical ineptitude too.

The equation 1+1+1= 3 is written to represent the individual numbering of 3 distinct things. But the equation 1x1x1=1 is an attempt to represent not the numbering of things counted, but the amount of times the amount of things are counted.

1x1x1=1 not because we have 3 things being multiplied to make one. But only 1 thing counted as 1 thing 3 different times.

It’s not three in one or one of three. It’s not a hair-splitting distinction between “personhood” and “being”. It’s literally just pointing to the one and only thing three different times declaring it to be one thing each time.

Count the same one thing over and again as many times as you like forever, and contrary to the name of what you are doing being called “multiplication” though the times the one item has been counted be infinity, the item will eternally be only a singularity.

So no, we don’t need to bother with the word trinity not being in the Bible. Why would it be? It was an attempt by a Greco-Roman philosopher turned Christian theologian to explain the biblical divinity in a manner he could understand in his heathen mind.

Moreover, the Bible does not allow for trinitarianism to exist within itself. And the Text of Scripture never attempts to explain the nature of the Most High neither His relationship to His Word nor His (Their) relationship to the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit). And not without reason - it truly is a mystery and meant to remain so.

Not a mystery like Christianity tries to excuse the Trinity once its explanation hits a logical wall, but an actual mystery made by the Most High not high minded heathens attempting to interpret Scriptural mysteries in concrete terms.

Second Guess First Assumption

Question Everything

Get Biblical

templecrier.com/paganism

https://storage.googleapis.com/production-ipage-v1-0-2/222/1524222/TADwvbZF/5ff38d7377474b5880bcea794e55c910?fileName=Tertullian%E2%80%99s%20Trinity%20Tradition%20.pdf