In my continued rebuttal of Dr. Daniel McClellan’s attack upon the Trinity, I critique his comment that the Trinity did not develop until after the New Testament text was completed, which is abject nonsense.
Dr. McClellan’s attack, though, upon the Bible is what I think he really wanted to talk about all along. He was merely using the Trinity as the means to do it.
What McClellan is also doing is setting up the naive and unwary, who believe he is some kind of “Bible scholar,” for a backdoor introduction to his Mormonism, even though it is more like Mormonism-lite.
It is the old “milk before meat” approach that Joseph Smith, Bruce McConkie, Boyd Packer et al talked about to soften up potential Mormon recruits by making them believe one Mormon idea is consistent with biblical teaching, and then deliver the more radical Mormon ideas that are completely contrary to historic, biblical Christianity.
For example, as pointed out in Part 1, rejecting the biblical Trinity and replace it with the polytheistic Mormon godhead, and then lead the initiate to believe that he or she can go on to become a god or goddess him- or herself one day
Nevertheless, here is Dr. McClellan’s brief comment, and then my subsequent rebuttal.
