The Bible doesn't use either word, "individual" or "trinity". However, Jesus does speak of two witnesses and everyone knew that passage also meant three witnesses.
But it does include "biblos", from which "bible" comes (the NT starts with "biblos"). Also "three" ("treis"), from which "trine" and "trinity" come.
Anyway, I agree with being exact both about what it says and about what concepts are very clear from it. When speaking with nontrinitarians I can affirm any proposition necessary in the book's own words rather than using the trinitarian formulae. To the Law and to the Testimony!
In that culture when you cited a passage that everyone knew, the whole passage was directly implied and understood by everyone, just like if I give you a meme you know the unstated implications of the picture or brief words. The passage in Moses says two or three witnesses directly, and Jesus cited that exact passage but used the application about two witnesses. So Moses said it and Jesus meant it.
It's also significant that the part of 1 John that is verified says the Spirit (Jesus's Breath), the water, and the blood are three witnesses, citing the same passage. (I think Tertullian wrote the other part, the "Johannine comma", in a margin, and then it got added to many manuscripts afterward due to misunderstanding.) So what we do have is that Father and Son are two witnesses (many Jesus-only types accept this), and Jesus's Spirit is also another witness ("another" can mean of the same or of a different category, and most followers of Jesus are fine with this if it's a different category).
The Bible doesn't use either word, "individual" or "trinity". However, Jesus does speak of two witnesses and everyone knew that passage also meant three witnesses.
I try to interact with nontrinitarian thought respectfully.
There are a lot of words not in the Bible.
Including the word "Bible."
The Bible illustrates the concept well.
The word "Trinity" may not appear, but the Bible speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The concept is very clear.
But it does include "biblos", from which "bible" comes (the NT starts with "biblos"). Also "three" ("treis"), from which "trine" and "trinity" come.
Anyway, I agree with being exact both about what it says and about what concepts are very clear from it. When speaking with nontrinitarians I can affirm any proposition necessary in the book's own words rather than using the trinitarian formulae. To the Law and to the Testimony!
In that culture when you cited a passage that everyone knew, the whole passage was directly implied and understood by everyone, just like if I give you a meme you know the unstated implications of the picture or brief words. The passage in Moses says two or three witnesses directly, and Jesus cited that exact passage but used the application about two witnesses. So Moses said it and Jesus meant it.
It's also significant that the part of 1 John that is verified says the Spirit (Jesus's Breath), the water, and the blood are three witnesses, citing the same passage. (I think Tertullian wrote the other part, the "Johannine comma", in a margin, and then it got added to many manuscripts afterward due to misunderstanding.) So what we do have is that Father and Son are two witnesses (many Jesus-only types accept this), and Jesus's Spirit is also another witness ("another" can mean of the same or of a different category, and most followers of Jesus are fine with this if it's a different category).