Insights on the Doctrine of the Trinity

Live from the Mecca of Mormonism Salt Lake City THIS is heart of the matterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology. Where we are learning together how to live as Christians in the age of fulfillment

And I’m your host, Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion.. Let’s begin with a word of Prayer.

Show 20B Follow-up on the Trinity – Live

May 5th 2020

I sincerely hope all of you are doing well in these strange times. I hope and pray, for both friend and foe alike, that the Love of God is pouring down upon you and these trying times are somehow working to bring you all closer to Him.

So before we get to our emails from last week's live show and last night's recorded shows, I promised that I would address some of the passages in the Bible that are used to support the man-made doctrine of the Trinity. I am going to hit on the top passages from both the Old Testament and the Apostolic Record.

We had a respondent named David from a week or so back that sent me some passages he wanted me to consider so I will address some of those too. However, there are a few things I have to say to make matters clear.

Clarifying Misunderstandings on Terms

First, I am realizing more and more why I am so misunderstood on the man-made doctrine of the Trinity and my own views about the make-up of God. The first reason is all on me because I have taken the liberty to use terms incorrectly in my explanation of the man-made doctrine. Specifically, when it comes to the Trinity, I have been interchanging the word “being” and the term “person” and this leads to confusion.

SO to clarify, there is one “being” in the man-made doctrine of the Trinity – called God. God is the being. There is one being. Then there are three PERSONS in the Trinity – called the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That alone makes me see the doctrine with much more clarity. I don’t agree with all of it, but I agree with some of it.

Let me explain. To me there is One Being who is called God the Father. He is also a person. And then there are two other persons, called the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they became personal entities upon their entrance to this world – Jesus in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Additionally, the One being God is One eternal person FROM WHOM CAME his Word, at the incarnation, in His only Human Son and from whom came, at Pentecost, His Spirit.

By entering into this human realm, the ONE being expressed Himself in two other persons – the Son and the Holy Spirit. But those expressions were not co-eternal persons prior to the incarnation. No no no. There was only One Being – God who at the incarnation, also became known as the Father. In the Old Testament, the One Being God was never referred to as the Father with a capital F. That is because he had no Son and No Holy Spirit that could indwell in human beings.

Understanding the Points of Doctrine

Again, it was ONLY because of the incarnation, when the One Beings Words became flesh, that the One Being was called the Father, and then because of His word made flesh, the One Beings Spirit was able to indwell in human beings. Now this is important and please try to understand – I have no issue with the following points of doctrine and therefore passages that support these points of doctrine are absolutely acceptable to me:

a. That there is one God – no problem. I believe this.
b. That there are three manifestations of the one God to us – through Himself as the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ and through His Holy Spirit. No problem. Agreed.
c. That all three – Father, his Word and His Spirit are equal and eternal. No problem. Agreed.

However, they are eternal and uncreated because they are elements, aspects, expressions of the One Being, God. So again, any passage that speaks to these three biblically supported truths I just named is a passage I endorse and agree with you all on – no questions asked.

But understand – because a passage speaks of the father, son and/or holy spirit DOES NOT MEAN that it supports the man-made doctrine of the Trinity! This is what is so humorous about the passages people send to me to consider – they assume that I do not see the Father,

Perspectives on the Trinity

Son and Holy Spirit as God. I do! I do! I do. So let’s take all of those passages right off the table – because I agree with the trinitarian ideal that there are three. But hear this clearly and hear it again: The TRINITY is not the fact that there are three and that there is one God – I embrace this and I am not a trinitarian!

The man-made doctrine of the Trinity that I do not agree with is:

1. That the three make up the one God – like an egg with yolk, shell, and white. I do not see God this way. I see God as the Father, the Being and as the source of the Son (by the Father’s Word becoming flesh) and as the source of the Spirit by His Spirit coming to us on Pentecost and indwelling in flesh because of the works of the Son.

2. I do not endorse the idea that there were three co-eternal, co-equal persons that have always existed as three persons who, again, make up the One God. I reject this three-person-hood ploy created by Man fully. I therefore reject the doctrine of “eternal Sonship” but instead see the preincarnate “Jesus of Nazareth” as the Word of the One being that was then made flesh and dwelled among us becoming a “person” then.

3. Similarly, I do not see the Holy Spirit as an eternal person co-equal and co-eternal in the eternities that makes up the One God, you know separate and distinct from the Father and His Word, but I see the breath or pneuma or spirit of one God as having the ability to enter human beings because of the work of the Son, and in that capacity becoming a person – meaning the person of God with us now.

Jesus of Nazareth

I do not see (listen to how I say this please) the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth as God materially before his deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God. (for he was tempted and not omniscient or omnipotent and died) but I do see the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth as fully God after the resurrection, which was the completion of the deification of the flesh of God’s only begotten son, our only Lord and Savior and in whom the fullness of God now dwells.

So again, to those who believe in the trinity and propose the trinity to others, I think it’s really important to remind you what the doctrine of the trinity teaches:

1. That there is one God being and that one God being has always consisted of three separate and distinct persons from each other that go by the names of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The Trinity teaches that these three separate persons are the same being – God.

Views on God

I tend to see God (the being also called the Father) as the One who manifests in the two, the Son, or the One Being's word made flesh, and as the Spirit which is the One Being's spirit that indwells in human beings since Pentecost. This view is NOT trinitarianism.

In fact, before we hit the main trinitarian verses let’s quickly cover the main ways that people see God:

We have the no God view (Atheism). We have the “some kind of higher power view.” We have the multiplicity of Gods view (known as Polytheism). We have the Henotheistic view (which is the Mormon view) which says that they have only one God with which they deal with (but submit that there are more than that).

Then we have the various Christian views of which the vast majority follow Creedal Trinitarianism which describes God as One Being – called GOD Who is made up of, or consists of three eternally existing persons that go by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Then there is the Modalist or Oneness view, which says GOD is the Father (who is fully present in the Son – which means the Father suffered on the cross) (and who is fully present in the Holy Spirit). Then there is the Sabellianist view which says that God the Father, became the Son, who became the Holy Spirit.

And then there is my view which I will summarize next week. There is One Being – God. Who sent His own words to earth and clothed them in the Man Jesus of Nazareth, becoming at that point, the Father, and when the Son overcame sinMissing the mark of faith and love—no punishment, just lost growth or peace. and death, he sent His Breath to dwell in human beings as the person of the…

Understanding the Trinitarian View in Scripture

Genesis: Examining God's Plural Speech

Because of the incarnation, God then will forever be One Being of three persons. But not before.

Okay, with that on your plates, let’s look at some of the biggest passages of scripture that Trinitarians use to support their views. We will start with Genesis and move toward Revelation. And remember, I am skipping over the passages that only speak of three because we agree that there are three. The first passages have to do with God speaking in terms of plurality, as in

Genesis 1:26: Let us make man in our image.
Genesis 3:22: The Lord God said, “Since the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, take from the tree of life, eat, and live forever.”
Genesis 11:7: Let us go down and confuse their language.

These are biggies for Trinitarians. But even the best trinitarian apologists admit that these passages are most likely speaking to the hosts of heaven and not to two other persons in a Trinitarian Godhead. And then a number of scholars believe that this is the way “a noble” would speak about himself when he refers to his singular self as a “we”, like when a King says, speaking of himself, “we are not pleased.”

That being said, I have no problem with this passage (and those like them) having God referring to His Word and Breath from the consuming fire of His nature, but again, this does not prove the man-made Trinitarian view that there are three persons involved here making up the one God. I hear God, the One Being, speaking and allow that he could be speaking of himself, like when we lay in bed in the morning before going on to a major job and say to ourselves as we struggle to get out of bed, “Okay, let’s do this thing.” Anyway, there are three reasonable responses to those types of passages which are very few in the Old Testament comparatively speaking.

The Great Shema and the Concept of Elohim

The next one – which is boilerplate trinitarian rhetoric which cites the Great Shema:

Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. In Hebrew, the YHWH our Elohim is one YHWH.

Commenter David wrote

In Genesis and in the Shema God is called "Elohim" this denotes a plurality of gods in the Hebrew definition of the word.

Whoa whoa whoa, Brother Daweed. Okay, it’s really convenient to just blanketly state that Elohim denotes a plurality of Gods in the Hebrew, as if that is the law of Hebrew grammar. We hear this time and time again by both Mormons and Trinitarians.

But remember, while Elohim is sometimes used as a name for God, a God or a judge, and Elohim IS a ‘plural’ form (because of the suffix IM), this does NOT mean that the God spoken of here, or that a judge spoken of there, is plural. That is the mistake we non-Hebrews make trying to find certainty where there is none. See, Hebrew is a gendered language, and as a gendered language, all verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs must AGREE in tense and number in a sentence. When ‘Elohim’ is used as a god-referent (and remember it is sometimes used to describe other individuals like a judge or king or situation) it is invariably used with SINGULAR verb, adjective and adverb forms. Therefore, we understand that in those phrases, ‘elohim’ is a singular word even though it has a ‘plural’ form.

Hebrew Plural Nouns

Hebrew has other words called ‘plural nouns’ that aren’t really plurals at all – like water (mayIM). So even when Elohim is used to describe a noble person or judge and it is written in the plural form that does not make the judge a plural being. When we go to the English literal reading of the Hebrew, “in the beginning, God,” the re-ordering of the words in English is: ‘At the start, Elohim created (which is – ready folks – in the masculine singular). So, that Elohim is a plural argument is not a great one to prove the Trinity in the Old Testament. Add in that the context of the Great Shema to any Jew means ONE, ONE, ONE and not a plurality of Gods I think that passage has been put to bed.

In Exodus we read about the Angel of the LORD entering into a bush and speaking to Moses, but the language in the text denotes the Angel is divine. Not once in the passage does it state the God spoke from the angel or does the angel say this is

Discussion of God's Messengers in Scripture

What God told me to speak to you. In fact, through the whole passage, it says that the LORD was speaking. And Septuagint translation for angel here is angellos which means messenger. The Messenger of YHWH is what it says. The fact that YHWH sent his Messenger in no way supports the Trinitarian dogma of three persons co-equal making up the one God.

David writes, we see another example of this in Genesis 6 where Hagar runs away because she doesn't like the way Sarai was treating her. Again we see that the angel is referred to as the LORD and even Hagar says that she gave a name to the LORD that spoke to her as the LORD that sees me. If it was just an angel wouldn't Hagar refer to it as such? Again, these are passages that can be massaged to support a view, but they are not conclusive on the meaning. Frankly, we do not know who or what God’s messengers were in the Old Testament, and it is a straight-up act of conjecture to suggest that this was the Lord Jesus Christ pre-incarnate, or a heavenly angel using God’s name, or the embodiment of the Holy Spirit.

Instances of Plural Pronouns in Scripture

Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord asking: Who will I send? Who will go for us? I said: Here I am. Send me. This is another Scripture in which God used a plural pronoun in connection with Himself. The grammar of this verse is as follows: “Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send (first person common singular), and who will go for us (first person common plural)?" The singular verb cannot have a plural pronoun as its antecedent. Again, God must be addressing someone else in this statement. Whatever the situation, we know that it was only God who was going to do the sending (v. 8).

Considering that in the context of chapter six there is a lot of angelic activity (2-3, 6-7), it should not seem strange to think that the Lord was addressing angels. Which again, even Trinitarian scholars admit. It might seem strange to think that God would ask the angels for a plan of action to take against the rebels at the Tower of Babel. God does not need anyone else's advice does He? Even though God does not need advice, it is evident that He does sometimes seek after it. There is a detailed account of God corresponding with angels to come up with a plan of action in I Kings 22:19-23.

In this passage Micaiah, the prophet told Ahab and Jehoshaphat that he "saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left" (v. 19). This is clearly an assembling of the angels. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss a plan of action to bring about Ahab's death. The Lord posed the question to the angelic host, "Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead?" (v. 20). And there was an actual debate indicated by the phrase, "And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner" (v. 20). Finally, an angel came up with a way to persuade Ahab that God was pleased with (v. 21). And he said, "Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so" (v. 22).

God’s Communication with Angels

If the Lord wants the input of His angels before executing His plan, that is His prerogative. All we know is that God does this on some occasions, and for whatever reasons, He consults with His angels and involves them in His "missions."

Just to toss in one more from the Old Testament (there are a number of others Trinitarians use but they all address points that are not unique to Trinitarianism) but let me address Isaiah 9:6 which says something that supports my view of the One God, saying:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

This is one of the only places where God is described as Father and this passage is directly speaking of Jesus the Son. If anything, these passages endorse Modalism more than any other position.

Let’s jump out to the New Testament: Matthew 1:23 says’ behold a virgin shall be with child and bear

Analysis of Key Biblical Passages

a son and they shall call his name Emanuel, which means God with us. I have NO problem with Jesus being God with us – he was. So to me, this passage is perfect. The name does not mean God the Son is with us, but God with us, in the flesh of the Man Jesus of Nazareth. No problem. Then there is Matthew 3:16-17 which Trinitarians think is their passage but it plainly describes my view of God saying:

"When Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water. The heavens suddenly opened for him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming down on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased."

Again, the three do not the Creedal definition of the Trinity make. I’ve no problem with the three, but the fact that there are three present here perfectly illustrates what God has done to reach and reconcile humanity to Himself. God, the One Being speaks from Heaven about an earthly graft of Himself in the earthly realm (His Son) while His Holy Breath descends upon Him. Amen! But not proof of Creedal Trinitarianism.

Biblical Understanding of the Trinity

Where does the voice come from? Heaven. Whose voice is it God the Father – as Paul describes him. He speaks identifying his only human (Son Jesus of Nazareth) as his Spirit, the Holy spirit, descends. All the players present are God, but they are not three co equal co eternal persons – and this is my issue with the man-made Trinity – not that there are three, but that the creed describes the three as separate persons uncreated from eternity and co-equal with each other, as persons. I do not see this passage supporting this.

Examination of Matthew 28:19

Now one of the biggies – Matthew 28:19. Huge for trinitarians, as Jesus apparently says to his disciples before ascending to His Father:

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

David asked in a comment online: Why are all three persons of the Trinity denoted here? Why not instruct people to be just baptized in the name of the Father or the Father and His Son? Why three separate persons? It’s a great question David. But perhaps the better question is, “why don’t the disciples in any of the accounts we have of them baptizing, follow Jesus instructions here? I mean they directly disobey these very explicit instructions of Jesus to them, and instead baptize in Jesus name alone. Why? Why do we not have one instance of the apostles or other baptizing in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You wanna know why? To me the only reasonable answer is this is not what Jesus said. Instead, some exuberant Trinitarian, going way back, inserted these additions to the text. Interestingly, Eusibius, perhaps the first church historian, cites this passage only mentioning baptizing in the name of the Son – which is how all the New Testament baptisms are described. Look, its too on the nose. I admit that other church leaders include this phrase prior to Eusibius, but in my estimation this passage was manipulated and that is proven by the rest of the history of the nascent churches baptism all being done in Jesus’ name alone.

Do we have other evidences that the scripture was manipulated to promote the Trinity? We certainly do. And again, these passages are too on the nose compared to the rest of scripture, exposing themselves. What and where are they? John’s first epistle, referred to today as the Johannine Comma. You want on the nose, listen to this one passage.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This passage for years have inspired trinitarians and has given them clear, straight-forward proof that their man-made doctrine is scripturally supported. Right? I mean isn’t the trinity clear here? It sure is, buster! And there’s a reason for this. The passage was added. I’m not going to go into all of the evidence for this, but just go online and type in Johannine Comma. Bottom line, it got legs in the 15th century and the oldest evidence of it was 400 years after Christ – not before – which was conveniently after the initial establishment of the Church.

Trinity and Its Debates

Trinity as gospel truth.

We notice that all the Bible versions that support it extended out from Roman Catholicism sources and even the man I greatly admire, Erasmus, stuck it on one of his editions in 1522. Anyone with a modicum of reason, not even having to be a scholar can see that this is an on-the-nose manipulation of the sacred text PROBABLY inserted somewhere along the line by a well-meaning Christian zealot-scribe, who wanted to make sure people adopted the man-made doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps sadly, I am therefore suspect of anything in scripture that is not sustained by the rest of scripture – and Matthew 28:19 (or the Great Commission directive) is one of them.

Listen – I don’t claim to understand the make-up of God nor do I think the Trinity is entirely wrong – not by a long shot. But I reject some parts of it as MAN-ipulation and want not only the right to this opinion, but the respect and fellowship of being a Christian inspite of it.

Audience Reactions and Interpretations

Let’s take a look at the comments from last week's Tuesday live show and then last night's follow-up show on the Trinity:

Anna Kuyava: I’m no Mormon, but I think even regular Christian churches should help out more too.

xyzacct: re: debate….and the adversary smiles in delight. how sad.

rsk5660: That's a great statement in that email at 53.55 "institutions governed by men to remove your own self worth"

Clark Davis: Good job Shawn. Really. Blessings Brother.

David Paulk: Hey Shawn! I watched your video. Thank you for planning to take the time to address additional verses in the Bible shared with you to speak on how you understand them. I'm interested in what you have to say. I agree with you that these types of discussions should not be divisive and hope you received my last message not as such. I'm curious if you see this as a topic regarding salvation? If, as a Trinitarian I acknowledge all three entities as one God and worship them as such do you think that I'm not saved? Not trying to be argumentative just want to know your thoughts. Peace to you.

truthseeker staats: The superstitious trinity is a lie. The real trinity are three individual heavenly Beings. Proven by the simple fact, it takes at least two individuals to love each other like Jesus and His Father do. The Holy Ghost is yet another Comforter, another and third heavenly Being sent to Mankind in Christ's absence. :>)

Theological Exchanges

DAOME 2012 wrote: The god who happens to be a singular person is as pathetic as you… whoever you are. Simple.

Shawn McCraney: Ouch. Who is this directed to, brother?

daome2012: @Shawn McCraney" Ouch. Who is this directed to, brother?" Whoever believes that god is a singular person.

Shawn McCraney: @daome2012 Sorry to offend.

daome2012: @Shawn McCraney" Sorry to offend." None taken. Just reminding believers who claim that god= 1 person comes with consequence.

Shawn McCraney: @daome2012 what consequences will come to a believer bradda?

daome2012: @Shawn McCraney" what consequences will come to a believer bradda?" Mainly the one of worshipping a deity made in your image and likeness which is… idolatry.

Shawn McCraney: @daome2012 just so we're clear, believers in Jesus Christ will be charged with idolatry for believing in one God?

daome2012: @Shawn McCraney" just so we're clear, believers in Jesus Christ will be charged with idolatry for believing in one God?" No. Idolatry stems from the claim that god= 1 person. Correct me if I'm wrong but is your belief that Jesus Christ was a human being prior to his incarnation?

Shawn McCraney: @daome2012 that is incorrect. I believe that Yeshua the Messiah was the Word of YHWH before his incarnation.

daome2012: @Shawn McCraney"I believe that Yeshua the Messiah was the Word of YHWH before his incarnation" Thanks for the correction… And the Word is 1 person prior to incarnation?

Shawn McCraney: @daome2012 I don't know how the word of God manifested but I don't think it was in the second person of the holy trinity called God the Son.

daome2012: @Shawn McCraney" I don't know how the word of God manifested but I don't think it was in the second person of the holy trinity called God the Son." What you've expressed is another consequence of believing that god= 1 person since John is clear that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Have you read all of Scripture, in sequence, or is that a work in progress?

Shawn McCraney: @daome2012 the fact that the Word was with God and the Word was God fortifies my stance in my mind as expressed.

Understanding the Trinity

fact that the Word was with God and the Word was God fortifies my stance in my mind as expressed." What you know what you think and what fortifies your stance in your mind is incoherent and further demonstrates that the God revealed in The scriptures and Their Gospel aren't yours to proclaim. Friend, repent for God probes the hearts and innards or perish.

McCraney @daome2012 And so it goes. Lord bless you my brother. I will continue to seek Him.in spirit and truth

Self-Reflection in Faith

E Christian I don’t get hung up on defining the trinity. God loves me, Jesus loves me, the Holy Spirit is love. However one wants to attribute them is fine with me.

Seeking Scriptural Understanding

daome2012 @E Christian"… I’d like to see the verses." I leveled the charge against Shawn and yourself as being Doctrinally ignorant, given neither of you have shown sign of having read all of Scripture in sequence, which hasn't been denied. God has loved and revealed Themselves to Their own beyond measure and it's all preserved in Scripture. Your lack of thirst for Their word and your dependency on commentaries is evidence against you. Repent, your idol worshipping is evident or… perish. Simple

AND THEN FROM LAST NIGHTS SHOW TRINITY PART II