The Trinity lacks any Biblical support

[amazing grace]

Take it up with the Roman Catholic Church because they say that all the time.... Mother of God.... Not we protestants.
Well, since the Word was God.... And the Word became Flesh/Jesus... You must be right....
I appoint you in charge to notiffy all translations of the Holy Bible and tell them to put in a footnote.

Yea, they do say it all the time and although the protestants don't say it - Mary is the Mother of God in light of the Trinitarian doctrine.
Yep, the word, the full expression of God became flesh as the only Son from the Father full of grace and truth.

ChatGPT
Short answer: No—there is no Protestant Bible translation that directly calls Mary “the Mother of God” in the biblical text.

Here’s the important nuance

What Protestant Bibles​

All Protestant translations include Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth says:


The phrase “mother of my Lord” is universally present across Protestant and Catholic Bibles alike.

Why they don’t say “Mother of God”​

Protestant translators generally avoid theological titles not explicitly stated in Scripture, even if the concept is implied.
“Mother of God” (Greek Theotokos) is a Christological conclusion, not a direct biblical phrase.

So Protestant Bibles:

• Translate what the text says
• Leave theological interpretation to teaching and doctrine
• Avoid language closely associated with later church councils or Marian devotion

Important clarification​

While Protestant Bibles don’t say “Mother of God,” many Protestants historically accepted the idea in a limited sense, meaning:

This was the original intent of the term at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD)—to protect the doctrine that Jesus is one Person, fully God and fully man, not to exalt Mary.

Summary​

• No Protestant Bible uses the phrase “Mother of God”
• All Protestant Bibles affirm “mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43)
• “Mother of God” is a theological conclusion, not a translation choice
• Protestants typically avoid the term to prevent misunderstanding or Marian excess

I never said the phrase 'Mary, Mother of God' was Biblical.

Well do it a million and one.... Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God

grammatically explained.

JN 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

JN 1:14 NASB95 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

and that most likely is because no one gives a flying fig what is or is not a a predicate nominative case.
Are you by any chance related to Dorothy Bryson?

In every single translation I could post for you in JN 1:1 the Word was God.... except the NWT that says the Word
was a god.

In every single translation I can post for you it says in Jn 1:14 It says and the Word became flesh, was made flesh
and ,NLT say was made human.

If you cannot see that the Word was Jesus.... just forget it because you never will....

I am not saying that the translations should be changed @ John 1:1c - the understanding of the verse lies in whether 'God' is in the nominative or vocative case. But if no one gives a flying fig ......
No, I don't even know who Dorothy Bryson is.
I NEVER said that the word didn't become flesh - and dwelt among us as the only Son of the Father or as some translations have only begotten Son from the Father . . . . I'm saying God did not become flesh.

Viva la difference....

 

[101G]

The Bible never states God as "three persons in one being."

No verse says that "God is three in one."

Correct, because he is a "Diversity" of .... "HIMSELF". God is ONLY "one" person who, "SHARED", himself in flesh and bone with blood to save us from sin.

The ERROR in the three-person trinity is made right at the beginning ...... Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

the two term that establish God singularity as a duality of himself are the terms, "beginning" and "God".
beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

now the connection to God as "ONE" person ..... Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

NOTE the Highlights ....... God is an ORDINAL "OF" HIMSELF TO COME IN .... as beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f. which establish that he's the "FIRST" in 1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
just as the definition state in the term "beginning". now the term, God in Genesis 1:1

God: H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433
Compare: H5945, H7706, H8199, H4397
3. (specifically, in the plural? and the [plural of H433] .... there is the ANSWER to God's plurality of, of, of, "ONE as Deuteronomy 6:4 clearly states........ 2. (as an ordinal) first.

this is too easy not to understand.

101G.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Yea, they do say it all the time and although the protestants don't say it - Mary is the Mother of God in light of the Trinitarian doctrine.
Yep, the word, the full expression of God became flesh as the only Son from the Father full of grace and truth.

I never said the phrase 'Mary, Mother of God' was Biblical.

grammatically explained.

I am not saying that the translations should be changed @ John 1:1c - the understanding of the verse lies in whether 'God' is in the nominative or vocative case. But if no one gives a flying fig ......
No, I don't even know who Dorothy Bryson is.

Dorothy Bryson was one of my high school teachers back in the 1960s.

She was such a stickler for grammar and pronunciations that after I graduated and began to travel... no matter where I went I waas asked what country I was from because I had an accent different then other citizens of the US...

She is long dead now but every time I see you or anyone bring in grammar and parts of speech in a corrective or explanatory manner I think of her and wonder if there is a DNA connection.

I NEVER said that the word didn't become flesh - and dwelt among us as the only Son of the Father or as some translations have only begotten Son from the Father . . . . I'm saying God did not become flesh.

One last time from the book of John.

IF JN 1:1 declares that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Then....
The Word was God
All things were created through Him
The Word became flesh
No one has seen God; the only-begotten God/Son has made Him known


John 1:14 cannot be interpreted independently from John 1:1.
If the Word was God in verse 1, then the Word becoming flesh in verse 14 means God became flesh.
If you deny that conclusion, you must first prove that John 1:1 does not mean the Word was God.

John says the Word was God (1:1), that all things were created through Him (1:3), and that the Word became flesh (1:14).
Unless John contradicts himself, the same subject is in view throughout.
So the incarnation follows directly from John’s own claims.

In fact... John does not say the Word represented God or spoke for God; he says the Word was God and later says that same Word became flesh. That is identity language, not agency language.

John’s own argument leaves no other option unless YOU redefine ‘was God.’

 

[amazing grace]

View attachment 2713Dorothy Bryson was one of my high school teachers back in the 1960s.

She was such a stickler for grammar and pronunciations that after I graduated and began to travel... no matter where I went I waas asked what country I was from because I had an accent different then other citizens of the US...

She is long dead now but every time I see you or anyone bring in grammar and parts of speech in a corrective or explanatory manner I think of her and wonder if there is a DNA connection.

I can appreciate her recognition of the importance of grammar and figures of speech in the English language and literature.
Words carry meanings and the meanings lie within how they are used. Without the knowledge of grammar or different figures of speech -- our reading comprehension would seriously be lacking! And Greek language together with it's nuances help us understand a book written from a totally different aspect from the English language! I wish I knew and understood it better but I don't and therefore have to depend upon Lexicons, Concordances, other Greek scholars to help with that.

One last time from the book of John.

IF JN 1:1 declares that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Then....
The Word was God
All things were created through Him
The Word became flesh
No one has seen God; the only-begotten God/Son has made Him known

Now, I have been called a 'hyperliteralist' MANY TIMES on this forum but for the ones who read this and accept it as 'the word was God' literally ----- IMO are the 'hyperliteralist'.
Yes, John 1:1 declares that in the beginning was the Word - that 'in the beginning' would be "In the beginning God created" - the act of creating.
1:1b the Word was with God - God's word was with him --- God spoke things into being - By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. [Ps. 33:6, etc.]--- Who is ho theos in this section? Isn't it the Father?
and the Word was God. --- I know you don't give a flying fig about the grammar but this shows theos to be in the nominative case
Speech: Noun; Case: Nominative; Number: Singular; Gender: Masculine
The Word is not being ADDRESSED as God (vocative case) but is being used DESCRIPTIVELY (nominative case, predicate nominative) In any case if theos at John 1:1b is the Father then theos at 1:1c would also be the Father.

Plain and simple: Why would John come in and contradict the other three Gospels?

John 1:14 cannot be interpreted independently from John 1:1.
If the Word was God in verse 1, then the Word becoming flesh in verse 14 means God became flesh.
If you deny that conclusion, you must first prove that John 1:1 does not mean the Word was God.

If theos at John 1:1b is the Father then theos at 1:1c would also be the Father.

What do I do with scripture which God clearly states He is not a man? Is John now contradicting God in saying that God became flesh - a man, a human being?

No, I don't need to prove that John 1:1c doesn't mean the word was God - I believe it means what it says. The question would be - in what manner did John mean 'the Word was God' ---- Did he mean that the word was literally God (the Father) or that the word expressed who God is, the word was fully expressive of God? John wrote under inspiration of God, under the inspiration of the spirit ---- so what John writes has to line up with the whole scope of scripture.

John says the Word was God (1:1), that all things were created through Him (1:3), and that the Word became flesh (1:14).
Unless John contradicts himself, the same subject is in view throughout.
So the incarnation follows directly from John’s own claims.

the Word was God ---- all things were created through him - how were all things created? through what God said - through God's word ..... all things were created through the Word........'him' being a personification of the Word just like God's wisdom is personified as 'she' in Proverbs.
The Word that fully expressed who God is, the Word that was the full expression of God became flesh ---- and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
We cannot have John contradict the whole scope of scripture especially the first 3 Gospels.

In fact... John does not say the Word represented God or spoke for God; he says the Word was God and later says that same Word became flesh. That is identity language, not agency language.

John’s own argument leaves no other option unless YOU redefine ‘was God.’

IMHO, I do not believe John is being contradictory to the OT scripture nor to the other three Gospels ----- so he definitely had something else in mind when he wrote - 'the word was God'.

I could be wrong - you could be right.......I could be right - you could be wrong. We won't know for sure whether one is just following the doctrines/traditions of men or whether one is obeying God rather than man until Christ's return and we see him face to face.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I could be wrong - you could be right.......I could be right - you could be wrong. We won't know for sure whether one is just following the doctrines/traditions of men or whether one is obeying God rather than man until Christ's return and we see him face to face.

 

[TomL]

These key verses are interpretive, not definitive.

John 1:1 states "the Word was God," but equating "Word" with a distinct divine person involves theological assumptions.​

​

Not at all


It is obvious in the text

John 1:1–13 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. 9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

He the Word was in the beginning with God.

The Word was God.

All things came into being through Him.

Apart from Him, nothing came into being that has come into being.

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

He is the true Light, which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him.

As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,

The word remained a name by which he is identified

Revelation 19:13 (NASB 95) — 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

So your denial of the word's personhood is shown false.

 

[dwight92070]

Evidence is using any data, statement, or observation that can be used to support a claim. For example, if your claim is that God is a trinity and you want to argue your claims that the Trinity is Biblical, you must provide evidence. You need to show some statements about God being three, any observations about God being three, or any data that is in lign with what your claim is.

These sorts of statements about God do not exist in the Bible. So before you start popping off a laundry list of verses about this and that, you need to start at square one. You cannot argue for the existence of something that does not have evidence.

Why is the trinity not established in the Bible?

The Bible never states God as "three persons in one being."

No verse says that "God is three in one."​

The technical terminology ("person," "essence," "substance") came later in the history of the church (e.g., at the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD).​

These key verses are interpretive, not definitive.

John 1:1 states "the Word was God," but equating "Word" with a distinct divine person involves theological assumptions.​

Matthew 28:19 says Father, Son, and Spirit but does not say they are co-equal or one God.​

Some New Testament scriptures seem to contradict Trinitarian thought.

John 17:3 - Jesus speaks of the Father as "the only true God."​

1 Corinthians 8:6 - "One God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ."​

These suggest distinction or hierarchy, not absolute equality.

The early church did not originally believe in later-defined Trinity; the teaching evolved over numerous centuries in response to debates (Arius vs. Athanasius, etc.).

There is no reference to the Trinity in the Bible, but only interpretations.​

​

There aren't any clear or definitive statement of the Trinity in the Bible.​

Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is a faith conclusion and not a belief based on evident biblical facts.

Actually you are right, the Trinity is a faith conclusion, but you are wrong to say that it is not based on Biblical facts. It most definitely is based on an overwhelming volume of Biblical facts. We know the apostles believed in it - not by that name, but they believed in the concept. They even called Jesus "God" on a handful of occasions, which you non-Trinitarians reject, as you do much of the Scripture.

Just one case in point. The wise men equated "The King of the Jews", Jesus, to The Almighty God. How do we know that? Because when they saw Him, they fell on their faces before Him and worshiped Him. Remember, He was a small boy less than two years of age at that time. They KNEW that humans ONLY WORSHIP GOD, which agrees with the words of Jesus Himself in Matthew 4:10. If they didn't know that, then they weren't very wise.

Today, we have men who THINK they are wise, who refuse to equate Jesus with God, and therefore in many cases, refuse to worship Jesus. Or they deny His Deity and yet still worship Him, in which case they are guilty of idolatry, because someone who is not God should never be worshiped.

Let's take a 2nd point. Genesis 3:22 "Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of US, knowing good and evil; ..."
Who is US? It cannot be angels or any angelic being. Why? Because God said, "Let US make make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness; ... God created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HE CREATED HIM; MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM." Genesis 1:26-27

God did not create man in the image of angels. So US has to refer to the PERSON OF GOD HIMSELF.

I could go on all day making points, which I have done on this forum countless times, as have many others, but non-Trinitarians reject and twist ALL OF THOSE SCRIPTURES. They are not wise.

Even King Herod knew that the "King of the Jews", that the wise men were seeking, was the Messiah, even though the wise men had not told him that. Matthew 2:4 But the wise men gave further evidence as to WHO the MESSIAH was, when they fell on their faces before Him.