“Trinity” is not in the Bible.

Q. I cannot find the word Trinity in the Bible.
A. That is because the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible. The Doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in order to explain and synthesize diverse scriptures. To be brief, for instance in the very first book of the Bible:

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, …

After the revelations of Jesus in the NT we see this verse as signifying the Blessed Trinity. But it was a very subtle hint.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

Jesus claims preexistence and claims for himself THE NAME OF GOD given to Moses in

Ex.3: 13 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” 14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO AM“; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'”

Matthew 11:27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Jesus claims to be the Son of God. A son is of the same exact nature as the father therefore Jesus is divine, the second person of the Blessed Trinity and in Matthew.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Again we have here an allusion to Trinity-One God in Three persons—because “name” is singular followed by three names.


2 Responses to “Trinity” is not in the Bible.

  1. Michael says:

    It is fair to say that, one cannot prove the Trinity from Scriptures. “…the Church does not derive from holy Scripture alone the certainty she possesses on all revealed truths” (DV 9).

    “Let us make man in our image” indicates the plural of majesty rather than the Trinity (L.Ott, p. 55). The examples that indicate, but only indicate, divinity of Christ, do not refer to the Holy Spirit. The mandate to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, doesn’t tell us much either, although it is said that in it “the
    Trinity is most clearly manifested” (ibid.).

    We have to come to terms that the Scripture is not a “proof-text”, but a written articulation, or – with regard to the OT – an interpretation, of what the Church was proposing at the time. It was only by subsequent reflection under the Guidance, that she was able to see the text as inspired and canonical. The NT is in fact the evidence of early Tradition “set down…in writing” (DV 7/1). The OT was taken for granted, but subject to a particular interpretation, the elements of which are present in the NT.

    In this we fully share the Orthodox position, as articulated by Metropolitan Kallistos (ex Timothy Ware):

    “Note that the Bible forms a part of Tradition. Sometimes Tradition is defined as ‘oral teaching of Christ, not recorded in writing by his immediate disciples’ “ as if the Scripture and Tradition were “two distinct source of the Christian Faith. But in reality there is only one source, since Scripture exists within Tradition. To separate and contrast the two is to impoverish the idea of both alike” (The Orthodox Church 1964, pp 204-205 – I haven’t seen the recent edition, but this particular point is unlikely to be different).

    The Bible “must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but something that is lived and understood within the Church. It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority…; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority” (ibid. 207).

    The Metropolitan’s “only one source” is in fact Christ himself “in whom the complete revelation of the most high God is fully accomplished” (DV 7), “to see whom is to see the Father also” (DV 4), who “lived among us”; and whose Message has been handed on in the Church “in her doctrine, in her life and her worship… to all generations” (ibid. 8).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: