Where in Bible, is "Trinity"?

Video above is comprehensive; if you experience problems playing it, just look up "Trinity Verses" and "brainouty" in Youtube. And, if you view it in Youtube, the video description at right of video, provides you with my other webpages where the impact of Trinity is discussed. It's important to see how and WHY Trinity is valid, else you'll not understand either salvation, or the spiritual life.

My sites often focus on the nature of God and Trinity, all of them partial discussions or citation listings; because the topic crops up in so many differing contexts, this page will eventually contain links to all such sections. What follows is perhaps the most economical description, and roster of Bible citations. Use the links above to see more, especially the "Mystery Math" link.

From among the pagetop links, here are the best sections to read:
• DueDisclosure.htm, start from page beginning -- intra-page links will help you sort out when to stop reading;
• LordvSatan2.htm, first section;
• Lvs4a.htm's "Satan's Mystery Math" table and the bulleted text just before it (link of same name in that page will take you there);
• Fixes.htm, first ("Nature of God") section;
• TULpIIIS.htm (shortest).
This site and the "Mystery Math" one offer a roster of categories of Biblical exposition you can check in Bible; which roster actually spans thousands of verses, not some few arcanities. When you purview them, you'll realize there is no excuse to not understand Trinity; to deny Trinity.

To give you an idea of how prevalent Trinity is, the usual OT method of designating Trinity is WORDPLAY in the original languages. That means the Trinity are so well known, nicknames on Abram are used to denote the FATHER; wordplay on children and issue (and even motherhood, in Isa53) are used to denote the Son; wordplay on life and breath are used to designate the Spirit. Because, in the Hebrew, all these ideas tie to SYLLABLES in Their Names. Even the famous YHWH itself, is a concatenation of two famous Hebrew verbs: "to be" (haYAH) and "to become (haWAH). Hebrew is an economical language, so vowels aren't written, but only consonants, because the vowel sounds naturally pronounce given the consonantal juxtaposition. So it was naturally written down, only in consonants, since people didn't need the vowels (vowel points were inserted in the Hebrew OT during the Middle Ages by the Masoretes). So "YHWH" is not a secret, unknown Name and meaning. It is sacred, but not secret (dunno where dingbats got the idea it was secret). So it means "He Who Always Was.. Becomes!" Meaning, God the Son becoming Jesus (=Savior) the Christ(=Messiah=Anointed One, King/Savior). Bible is always clear. So clear, it uses wordplay.

Heck, the month of July-August is even named "Father" (Ab); according to Jewish tradition everything bad that's Temple-related happened on the 9th of Ab. You can prove the 1st Temple was destroyed 10th Ab (9th on solar calendar), Jer52:12. Calendar being off when the 2nd Temple was destroyed would lead to a 9th Ab=28-29August, 70AD, when it burned.

This wordplay sometimes can't even be hidden in translation. Isaiah is constantly playing on Trinity in what he writes. Chapter 9 is a whole Trinity chapter, as is Isa53. Isa63 is a great Trinity chapter, and very bald. Verses 1-9 are about the Son (here depicted at 2nd Advent, having just slaughtered all of Israel's enemies) -- keyword Redeemer (maybe playing back to Job?); verses 9-10 mention all Three of them at once per verse (like a couplet), using Sacred Name Play, showing how They work in concert; note the three "He" clauses in each verse; note how the Holy Spirit is in front by Name in v.10, since it was the Holy Spirit Who lead them out of Israel, around the wilderness (the pillar and the cloud) -- topic of verses 11-14; verse 15-19 are to the Father. Verse 16 is Ab wordplay -- ties to Matt23:9, Isa9:6, focusing on Father and Son Who 'fathered' Salvation-to-Come. Very wry writ! The LXX (Greek OT used by the Lord and NT writers, apostles) tries to emulate the Hebrew wordplay, when it can. In both Massoretic (BHS) Hebrew OT and LXX (which has verses missing from the BHS), Isaiah 53:10-11 uses this "He" structure to denote Father, Son and Spirit via "haphets" and "bouletai" LEGAL CONTRACT clauses. The contract was made in eternity past, else there would be no creation. As you read and ponder its terms, you can see that.

In short, to find Trinity in the OT, you need to know the rhetorical styles used to communicate it. That's like spotting the characteristics of a car on the road. Once you've seen a Maserati, you'll be able to later recognize another one. Then, you see many of them. So when you hear people bemoan the lack of OT Trinity verses, just smile. They betray their disdain for studying the Word, and then of course disdaining it, blame the Word for being obtuse. It's they who are obtuse. You can prove this. And if you want to know the Word, God will not withhold from your puny brain (however credentialed), the answers. Period. He denies no one. We deny Him. Prove it: use 1Jn1:9, follow prayer protocol (i.e., ask Father in Son's Name) and just ASK HIM to show you where Trinity verses are in the OT. Then go look! That's what I did. Same protocol is available to any brainout, scholar or no. (Again, this isn't to put down scholars. All academia and science are weighed down with politics. A scholar may know well how Trinity is displayed, but because of the political "consensus" rule -- meaning, you have to say fuzz phrases like "the consensus among scholars is", "the data suggest" and you are NOT allowed to be definitive -- the scholar must hedge, in public statements. Can't get politics out of academia and science. People's egos are bound up in their having 'knowledge'. Dunno why people use knowledge to account themselves better or worse than another person. We all have sin natures. But that's how it is. Can't get rid of politics then, because can't get rid of the sin nature.)

One very common style of demonstrating Trinity is antiphony: that means, an interactive singing/chanting reply between two or more 'sides'. Roman Catholicism borrowed from antiphony to create its "mass", where the priest talks and everyone stands up and replies. The Hebrew original is much more enjoyable, but the idea is the same. Hence the OT uses antiphony a lot: One Member suddenly breaking in and talking with Another, as in Psalm 110, Isa52:14-54:1; it's rife in both Psalms and Isaiah, so probably many other prophetical books as well. Translations always cut God's Head off, so these antiphonal discourses, which are communicated via the suffixes of verbs and nouns in the original languages, are usually stripped out in translation. Dingdongs who do that think they are 'cleaning up' a Word which somehow got adulterated, lol: though the liturgy of Hebrew worship is antiphonal! Another good example of antiphony is in Jer30:20-22: usually these verses are mistranslated, thus masking the antiphony (which uses the "He" rhetorical convention, with Father suddenly interrupting to testify in v.21, a parallel verse to Isa53:10's im tashim asham naphesho, a contract clause I live on, daily). Translations always mask Trinity verses: Satan&Co. aren't stupid, but we are. Don't blame the translators, since no one's weaknesses are a match for their strength.

Quite often the Trinity, the Son, the Holy Spirit or Father is designated by EMBEDDED soundplay: the way juxtaposed syllables sound out Their Hebrew names when the sentence is spoken, read. The sound embedding is rife with a number of concepts and words, wryly denoting FOUNDATIONALITY for the verse's topics. A real poignant example of that is the Hebrew of Isa52:14, "k'asher shamemu alayká", where ke+asher sounds like "kasher", meaning "pure"; and "alayká" sounds like "Eloheka", meaning Your God (last name, but in this verse the Son takes on Humanity and gets beaten beyond human recognition by those He came to save). Hebrew lexicons like TWOT (The Workbook of the Old Testament) all notice the embedded soundplay on the "El" sound, so this isn't some brainout's news. But it's news to those who don't do their homework, then run in chatrooms and smugly announce that Trinity isn't in the OT, lol, upsetting all the spiritual babies in the 'room'! [Of course, until I did my own homework, I didn't know either. Mea maxima culpa.]

Or, by humorous, tender metaphor: for example, the Holy Spirit is both designated by name and by His Primary Self-Chosen 'Mothering' function, in Gen1:2's "rahaph", a Mother Hen brooding over her chicks. So also, the "wings" (sheltering, defending) or "flying" references in the OT designate Him (as well as Trinity and Father and Son, depending on context): since Christ Himself would 'fly' in the spiritual life of His Humanity, UNDER the Holy Spirit. Notice how flying references air, wind, breath, life ="Ruach", His 'first name' in the OT. So we aren't surprised by Paul's comment to the Thessalonians that the Holy Spirit is the One Who Restrains Evil, that only when He removes Himself at the Rapture, can the "lawless one" arrive (2Thess2:6-7, usu. 2:6 mistranslates "Who" as "what"). [Katechw is used in both verses 6 and 7, so there's no excuse to mistranslate v.6's neuter as "what", since Pneuma is neuter. But because 2Thess 2:2 is mistranslated, the whole chapter gets messed up; same thing happened in 1Cor with respect to 1:5 and 1:10, so this is a common pattern of mistranslation. Translators seem to have a bad hair day with 1Thess2:2. The dia clauses are anarthrous, so YES are talking about The Holy Spirit, and the Word they and others, write the Thessalonians. So it's don't-get-upset-and-therefore-lose-the-Spirit-over-what-Word-written-you, "about the IMPENDING Day of the Lord." That's the best English idiom for translation. More literal would be "about the Day of the Lord which is now impending, sudden, unpredictable and next-in-sequence." The phrase "impending.." is Greek verb enistemi; it means an overhanging, imminent, 'threat' of a thing, next in sequence, you don't know when it will happen. Paul puts it in the perfect tense, signifying the CERTAINTY of the event itself coming to pass at some unpredictable future moment. Paul also plays on that concept in the beginning of the verse with tachews, which is a play on tachú, the Lord's interjected warning in the Gospel about His Suddenly Coming Back, aka the Rapture. Then Paul further plays on salpigxz, the "trumpet call" in 1Thess4:16, which verse they well knew -- by using Greek soundalike but opposite meaning verb, saleuw, to become discombobulated, agitated like troops in disarray due to defeat on the battlefield (unlike the taxis, battle order, which would result from a salpigxz, see also 1Cor15:52). Yet for all this obviousness, no commercially-published Bible translation I can read, gets 1Thess2:2 right (but my German isn't too good, so check the German); but each translation so mangles the meaning, cutting God's Head off. They all miss the anarthrous construction in the verse. So of course the Holy Spirit's Head is chopped off in v.6. It's incredible, how no one takes a fresh look at the original languages, when providing a 'new' translation to sell the public, but instead just copies the prior translations! But even among those prior translation, you get Big Hints that the original language meaning in v.2 is nothing like the translated 'supposition' idea. For example, the 1989 Reina Valera mistranslates Paul as saying "como si fuera nuestra", but the 1909 Reina properly does not add "si fuera", como si fuera en el verso. The 1989 puts in "que ya hubiera llegado", but the 1909 properly says, "esté cerca". The 1909 verse mistranslated as well, but in those two phrases, it's right, but all the other translations (i.e., the 1989) are wrong. Oh: I'm too far off-topic, so I'll stop now.]

But all translations are abstruse, mistranslated, truncated and blanded out versions of Holy Writ. Blasphemous, really. RightPT.htm has a link in it (at its pagetop) on how the Bible is "Badly Translated", and furnishes a summary of how bad the translations are. You can take the categories in the summary and prove every one of them, by comparing any translation to the original-language texts of Bible.

Only in the last 150 years, have the original-language "MSS" (manuscripts) been collated, collected, disseminated. Mankind has largely not had access to the inspired texts, therefore. So, you'll find a long and old 'body' of writings by people we now venerate as 'great', many of whom did not really know Bible well at all. And, since the original-language texts were not available to be consulted, and since people were content to just use what these supposed 'greats' wrote, God didn't cause the texts to BE 'discovered' again, either -- until (mostly) the 1800's. Even so, not much has been done since, to correct the prior misinformed ideas, since by the 1800's, folks like the Church Fathers, etc. were so venerated. Thus everyone wanted and bought what was said by other people, God's Own Word going largely unconsulted. Of course, this stubbornness is even more evident when you do study Bible and realise that even in translation! you can tell a lot of what the 'greats' wrote, wasn't correct. They meant well, they were human, no need to blame. But every need to get the right meaning from Bible. Especially now, when we have the original-language texts available even on the internet, for free...

Bible translations have always been problemmatic, which is why people fight so much; the translations are fuzzy, at best. Scholars know this; pastors know it; but for fear of massive defection, this fact about the translations being bad in key places, is not much discussed. Of course, many of us laymen know this, which accounts for the recent popularity of learning the original languages of Scripture.

The 'body' of old 'Christian' teaching on Trinity is thus often childish, flawed, and poorly-worded. Again, scholars and pastors know this, but the average joe is still inclined to venerate what's old. It's natural respect to want to do this. Hence the old errors are centuries old and persist, no one willing to correct them. Again, for fear of mass defection. Bible Is Perfect, and the translations while flawed, can now be corrected. So you can really still learn Him. Question is, are you willing to compare what you thought was right, to the Real Authority, the original-language preserved-by-God texts of Bible? Your choice.

So now one who uses translations to build doctrines, hates God. No kinder way to put it, and we are all guilty: it's a lot of trouble to use those original-language texts. But God went to a whole lot of trouble to preserve those texts; so anyone who doesn't go to the trouble of learning them, hates God. Granted, we all need the translations partially, and for a while even when using the originals. Granted, you must first be aware that all translations are flawed, to seek the texts He preserved. Granted, many people in history could not get them. But once you know -- and all pastors know, it's taught in seminary -- then there is no excuse. And of course our sin natures genetically 'hate' God, anyway, Isa52:14. What a great salvation, He bought for us!

Big problem among genuine Trinitarians is that they stumble over the bad lawyer language in their denominational creeds. The creeds try to condense Bible's teaching into easy-to-remember formulae, but unfortunately are often poorly thought out. So then, the Trinity get deemed a "mystery", when in fact the language of the creed is at fault. Then, the adherent in the denomination is badgered (sotto voce) into defending the wording, with the result that 'dissonant' wording is subjectively deemed heretical.

It's an easy problem to fix. The creedal definitions of Trinity all intend to rightly convey that the attributes of Father, Son, Spirit are the same, not unequal. This is true. But their wordings deny God's Several Independence. So to deny saying "Gods", which is the Truth, maligns Their Personhoods. This unintended maligning, needs correcting. LordvSatan2.htm tries to offer a correction to the historical "Three IN One" concept in the creeds, to the Biblical "Three AND One", of passages like 2Cor13:14 (communicated by the articles -- look up how articles in Greek, are used).

So, Westminster Creed definition is off in that it assumes "oneness" is quasi-spatial, hence uni-substantial, incapable of being replicated. Hence the creed, like so many before and after it, paints "God" as a hydra-headed monster. So its prescriptive of "oneness", is a quasi-symbiotic(!) co-dependence. So, you are heretical if you say "Gods", lol! As if, each Person wasn't wholly God on His Own? Then salvation would be a sham! Catholic "Unicity" definition is quite similar, but goes farther with the symbiosis, claiming God would otherwise be "diminished" (same term as in the Koran). Other sects basically reflect these two major definitional patterns. Note the inability to recognize that Infinity is qualitative, hence the inability to conceive of more than one set of attributes being Identical in Three Persons. The creedal definitions of "one" make Them 'share' the attributes, which is the opposite of the truth.

Yet both acknowledge Three Independent, Co-Equal, Infinite, Same-Essence Gods, so they are trinitarian, only fuzzy. They just avoid the plural, as if a plural (um, Elohim is plural) were heretical. Kinda stupid to do that, but they think it's polytheistic to say "Gods" -- why, I can't fathom. 2Cor13:14 says Three Co-Equal Infinite Identical-Essence Gods, plural, via the use of its articles (Greek "ho"). No doubt about it. We're talking Triplets, here (my pastor's statement, in describing Trinity).

Designations of this Triplet nature are all over Bible, and as usual, are deft and humorous.

• In Bible, you pay as much attention to what isn't said, as what is said, to learn what was commonly known. Bible is written to teach something you don't otherwise know, duh. So you can know from what is not much explained, what everyone knew. So, notice no one disputing with the Lord in the Gospels, asks who Father or Spirit is. So you would expect that OT references to Each Member of Trinity in OT are not going to be primers, but sophisticated. And so they are.

• The most famous one is the shema, Deut 6:4. Watch how Paul uses its real meaning in the Greek of Eph4:5-7, what a treasure (discovered it by accident -- yeah, no accidents in the Christian's life). In English, you can get it, if you think over the wordplay on "one", which was what endeared the Jews to the shema so much, they still use it every Saturday (not remembering the wordplay, now). One Father, One Son, One Spirit, each One, all United together: by love, not because They can't live alone. Fabulous. In "Satan's Mystery Math" table of LvS4a.htm, you'll find more verses, and in the bulletted text above it, you'll find more data. Also, spend time in lexicons with the Hebrew word echad (spelling varies) and Greek word heis. Like in English, the term is figurative, way more often than it is literal: first, best, united, in agreement, as well as one in number -- "and the two shall become one flesh". Every Jew knows that: my Hebrewspeak book even talks about the modern Israeli use of echad. So Do No Brains Turn On? Guess not.

• The "He" usage in OT and NT, viz., 2Cor5:21, stresses equality -- so alike you can't tell them apart. It's the Ineffable Name, oh, sacred! So only a pronoun is used, fabulous. Breathless awe can barely eke out a "he". A wife who is totally in love with her husband, talks like that. He's the only "he", and she seldom says his name. This is a distinctive feature of Judaism, which the writers use to good effect, and is behind the wordplay of "one", as well. So much awe, can't speak more Who They are...

• Also, Scripture denotes God's LAST NAME (again, my pastor's term) as "Elohim", to convey Equality of Infinite Essence; this is sadly translated "God", so in English we don't see the plural.
• For the First Name, OT will use "Ab" for the Father, either alone or with "Elohim" nearby; "Ruach" for the Spirit, often ALONE, but also with "Elohim" nearby (or with that Hebrew character which looks like a high hyphen); generally "YHWH"+Elohim means Son (but not always), and is the most common. YHWH alone usually denotes the Son, but not always (see Ps110:1 for the wry wordplay there). Even when distinctions are made, the identicality of Essence and view is stressed. Showing Triplets of Attitude and Nature, but Separateness, Independence of Person.

• It IS true that in the OT, "Father" is depicted more with background language features (most often, as the not-in-view object), precisely because until Messiah was born, there was no Priesthood to FATHER. Israel was in training to get to that point, and to do that, she'd have to accept Messiah once He came. But, she didn't. So, Church gets that role: all of Part IV of the "Thinking Series" is devoted to explaining that topic. So when He came, "Father" is upfront and prominent, all the time. Because now there is a Priesthood to Father. But the existence of Father was always known -- just distant, depicted as the Object of the sacrifices (which depicted Christ), the Object of the 'fathering' Branch or Redeemer or simply, "He" (ineffable Name!) Who would pay for mankind (i.e., in Isa53-55). Think: To Whom were all those sacrifices going? Moses didn't even have to say, did he...

• But the Son often said to Whom the sacrifices were going, using the same language as in Ps110:1. For, the OT Sacrifices were always future Memorials to Him taking Humanity and Sacrificing to Father. Never, man sacrificing to God. See "sweet savor" verses in KJV (43!), and all verses where The Lord is speaking, and then says that The Lord is the OBJECT of the sacrifices, like "All fat is the Lord's." Well, Which "Lord"? Certainly Yes the Son, whose Life (represented by fat, all your effort) was being sacrificed. But certainly Yes The Father, who Received that sacrifice. So, all fat IS the Lord-Son's, His Life. So, all fat IS the Lord-Father's, who Gets that sacrifice. Hebrew is all about double-entendre, and every Jew plays with that fact if he knows the language, even today. Mishnah is chock-full of it. So Do No Brains Turn On? Guess not.

  What distinguished Israel from all nations is that their sacrifices witnessed God 'sacrificing' Himself by taking on humanity, not man doing any sacrificing. God-Son sacrifices to God-Father, get it? That was the entire meaning of the Ark, His God-man nature! The entire ritual structure was a Memorial, yet-to-Come!

  Think how the Levitical (and even prior) sacrifices worked. An animal was killed to designate contract. That was just as true when Abel cut the throat of the first lamb (Hebrew, English masks), as when they did it in the Temple. This animal represents a substitutionary payment on MY behalf. I'm not the one dying, My Lord will do the paying for me. Life given to SAVE a life, and the life saved, is as helpless as that animal. But also, Gratitude Memorial, just as we remember soldiers who died on battlefields for our nation's freedom.

  That's why blood was sprinkled on the Ark. Inside the ark were representations of man's sin: the rod that budded (rebellion against Aaron's priesthood, in Numbers), and the first set of Broken Tablets (when Moses first came down from Sinai, operation Golden Calf). Ark represents Christ (gold=deity, wood=humanity), 'holding' sin. Blood Sprinkled represented Payment Completed, and Acknowledgement by Israel (represented by the high priest) of BELIEF. All this, Hebrews painstakingly explains in Chaps 5-10. There is no element whatsoever of man doing ANY paying to God. Only, him acknowledging what GOD does. You have to be downright crazy to think this ritual is man sacrificing something TO God, himself. Everything about it screams, "You can't pay, so I will." So, it's a Memorial to what Son will Voluntarily do, Towards Father, on behalf of humanity. Like, giving one's life for his country. Plain as that.

  Now, Think: the human undergoing this ritual would be inspired to emulate the One Who Pays for him. Out of gratitude. That's why men sign up to Go to war, too. So, What kind of thanksgiving, what kind of relationship, can be done? That's where the rest of the Law, came in: giving outlets for gratitude. You would be grateful not to sin, grateful to spend some token of yourself, grateful to praise, etc. Again, not sacrifice, but outlet for gratitude. Which, a grateful soul, needs. Which, that Most Grateful Soul Paying for mankind, needed the most. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" finds its fullest expression. Incarnate, even (Ps40, Heb10:5, Hos6:6, Matt9:13,12:7).

  I really don't know if there is a balder way to show Father. Son is pleased with sacrificing HIMSELF. That's why you needed a Temple, which presaged the Promise of His Body as Human. Father was the Object of that sacrificing, so "The Lord" in these hundreds of OT verses, is both Father and Son, each being pleased with the 'aroma' for His Own reasons. Dunno how God could make it plainer than to have the Son tell Israel what to do using "the Lord" as the object -- has to be a different Lord! David sure loved that meaning, in Ps110:1.

  So our not knowing and being confused is here not a 'translation' problem, but a problem of negative volition. These are all symbols, so no language barrier. So if you don't 'get' what they mean, it's only because you don't think about what they mean, due to disinterest or negative valuation assigned to the symbols. And, we all are the "you" in the foregoing sentence. When it comes to the REAL God, there is a natural disinclination to think. It's in the genes...

• So it shouldn't be surprising that though these distinctions are generally translated properly, though wordplay in translation is clear, we, disinterested, miss noticing them. So we also miss "Spirit" used in wordplay with living, meaning you're not productively alive if not empowered by Him; "Father", used in wordplay with Abraham and all corporate begettings (plus passages like Ps110:1, 40:5ff, Isa 9, Isa63).

• Then there are the Father-Son wordplay pairings, where Father fathers Son, and Son fathers everything else. So humorous, you could sit and smile for days. My favorites are in Isa 9, Ps110:1, Heb10:5 (referencing Ps40:5ff), and above all, in Isa53-55, where the Father of the Son fathering salvation is running foundationally throughout. (You'll see it if while reading in the Hebrew or Greek, you ask "To Whom is this payment going? WHO is giving Him the spoils of Victory?" Etc.) But there are many others. Practically every prophecy talking about Messiah will have in it "God" making a statement about Him -- there, often (but not always) God the Father is talking, especially if a possessive is used. "Branch", "Redeemer" passages are easiest to use, here.

• Conceptually, the Trinity is everywhere displayed. For example, Salvation requires Three Persons to unimpeachably execute it, so a verse will stress One Person's Role, whereas another will stress Another's role in it: Father judges, Son's Humanity pays (but He's also Deity, so to be Mediator, see 1Tim2:5); Spirit Empowers Son's Humanity to preserve juridical independence. The Role of each Person is spread about Bible verses dynamically. So, you see Spirit restoring the Earth, in Gen 1:2ff's Hebrew (or LXX); the believer, in Titus 3:5. So, you see the Son being the One who created it all ex nihilo, in Gen1:1 (verses like Isa45:7 identify Who was the Creator; see counterparts like Jn1, Col1:16-18). Father is the Ordainer, Chairman of the Board, so to speak: Eph1 is the easiest of the English passages to read on this, but also in 2Cor5:21, the Lord's use of "Father" and "God" in the Gospels, etc.

• Corporate Decrees often show all Three of Them at once: Gen1:26-27 (spoken by Father), Gen3:22 (spoken by Son), 2Cor13:14 (because all Three Indwell the Church "time" believer), many other passages. John 17 is the quintessential passage on the REAL nature of "oneness", like Marriage. Same words are used: check out the NT Greek of John 17, compared to the LXX verses with the same Greek keyphrases.

• Another big conceptual category is the way verbs are used, when describing God. Hebrew language is big on denoting GOD'S TIMELESSNESS by omitting a verb (so an Attribute is a predicate nominative or an adjective, the constant hayah being His NAME!); or, by putting a verb in the imperfect tense. Greek also has the aorist tense, the root of which is a point in time divorced from time, standing all alone. So you'll see the NT writers use no verb, the aorist, or the imperfect -- thus Hebraistically using Greek verbs -- To Deliberately Tie to the OT Hebraic meanings. Of course, the LXX does that all the time (pun intended). This, of course, alerts you to the Godness nature of Father, Son and Spirit. All of which meaning, is lost in translation (English has no equivalents, for example). So people who won't study the original languages, can pretend Trinity isn't visible in OT or NT. Guess again!

Polytheism's chief characteristic is UNequal essence of gods. Zeus, for example, was more powerful than Pluto (I forget his greek name). So don't mix up UNequal essence with plurality of independent persons -- the former is polytheism. Infinity is not spatial, but qualitative; so the number of Persons, is not diminished at all by being more than one.

Between the distortion over what "sacrifices" meant and what "gods" meant, you can readily see how the whole world always was informed about Trinity, but rejected its meaning. Two key elements: first, that sacrifice everywhere meant, from Gen3 onward (where the Lord sacrifices to clothe Adam and the woman with skins) -- a Commemoration of Salvation To Come, by The One Who Would Take On Humanity. Second, That One would Sacrifice Himself to Father, thereby becoming Mediator-Priest between God and Man, Empowered by the Spirit. Because They are the Same Essence, this juridical solution to sin, works. Else, it could not work, for the One Paying must be equal to the One Receiving, and the One Empowering must create that Equality in the nature added to, for the sake of the natures being paid for. It's simple economics, really. No one thinks it fair to get less value than a thing is supposed to be worth.

So, it's not surprising that every culture's religion talks of "oneness", "spirits", of "sacrifice", and "to the gods". They just cut out the original meaning, changing the meaning the very same way that an original language changes in sound and spelling, over the years. So notice: you can't go the opposite direction, from multiple unequal gods to Three Infinite Gods. It has to start with the Three Infinite Ones and truncate downward, conceptually. Same, for the idea of "sacrifice": you can't start with man doing the sacrificing and then go UP to God doing it, you have to start with God doing it and then subtract from that meaning. In short, both ideas and words change from some initial state and then due to subtractions, become something else. Because, like the first law of math, no set of ideas, like no set of numbers, can contain itself, but is contained by something larger than itself. So when you multiply those subtracted meanings, you morph out a whole language of thought, ideas, culture, religion, whatever.