The Trinity was never mentioned in the Bible
The Trinity is the main Christian belief which is the belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit one God. In this section, I will try to discuss it, and see if it is really from God or not.
Jesus (Peace be upon him), as he never told that he is God, and as he told that the Father is the only God, as I mentioned before, Jesus didn’t say anything concerning the Trinity, there are some verses Christians use to prove the Trinity, I will try to discuss it in this section:
God using the plural for Himself?
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Actually using the plural is not a proof that God is more than one person, for this is commonly used language for glorifying, and this was used concerning others in the Bible:
Ezr 4:17 Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. Ezr 4:18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.
2Ch 10:9 And he said unto them, What counsel give ye, that we may return answer to this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke that thy father did put upon us lighter?
Besides, the verse after it refutes the Trinity:
Gen 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This proves that the former verse was used for glorifying, otherwise this will mean that the other two persons went away, and only one person remained which is not the case for the Trinity.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
I actually don’t understand where is the point in that verse that proves the Trinity, it doesn’t say that the 3 persons are one, all what it says is that they were present with each other for a moment, neither it says that the Son or the Holy Spirit are God.
Also this verse is used as a proof:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
Actually there are some comments on this verse:
- The verse doesn’t say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, all what it said is to baptize people in the name of the 3 of them, saying name not names doesn’t mean that the 3 are one. When a leader tells his soldiers: “fight your enemies in the name of the country the people and the king” doesn’t mean that the 3 are one, this is the same case for 1 Peter 1:1-2.
Otherwise, if we used the same way, we can have another Trinity from the Bible:
1Ti 5:21 I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.
It is the first time for me to hear that the elect angels became the third person in the Trinity.
- The apostles didn’t respond to what Jesus ordered them in this verse, since the baptismal formula was never told that way by the apostles, but they were always baptizing people in the name of Jesus, and they were baptizing the Jews only not the gentiles, only Paul and Baranabas (who were not present when Jesus said the above) baptized the gentiles.
There is a problem in the canonicity of the verse itself as Eusebius quoted it, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”(Church history 3.5.2), Basil said that he knew nothing about it:”Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith.”
Johannine Comma (1 John5:7)
Another evidence is 1 John 5:7 which is commonly known as the Johannine comma:
“The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:
I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age – one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.
II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions – one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity – a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine – nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor – it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.”