In the following video (at 2 minutes, 53 seconds) Jonathan McLatchie acknowledges that the "oneness" of John 17:11, 21-22 is one of "purpose", but seems to argue that the "oneness" in John 10:30 is (or may be) one of both "purpose" AND "being/ontology/essence". McLatchie's additional arguments in the video in favor of Christ's full deity in John 10 are included in his article on the topic here: "I And The Father Are One" (John 10:30): A Claim to Deity? However, in the article, McLatchie seems to deny that the "oneness" of John 10:30 directly includes ontology. He may have changed his mind from the time he wrote the article and the recording of the video. Or I might be misinterpreting his statements in the video. But even if McLatchie denies that it is an essential/ontological oneness in both his video and article, the next video by Drew Lewis might tip the scales in favor of the inclusion of an ontological meaning.
In the following video (at 27 minutes, 50 seconds) Drew Lewis addresses Anthony Buzzard's favorite argument where he (Buzzard) uses the Shema to argue against the Trinity. Lewis argues that Buzzard is inconsistent because he leaves out other New Testament passages that strongly suggest an allusion to the Shema. One of the passages Lewis cites is John 10:30. That's because in John chapter 10 Jesus repeatedly emphasizes the Greek word for "hear" (alluding to the Hebrew word "shema" which is the first word of the Shema) and then later in the same context states that He (Jesus) and the Father are "one" (Grk. "hen") in John 10:30 (which itself alludes to the word "one" in the Hebrew of the Shema, "echad").
I also appreciate Lewis' connection between the Hebrew word "eloheinu" [i.e. our God] in the Shema and Paul's use of the phrase "for us" in 1 Cor. 8:6. I've commented on the passage many times before (e.g. in the comments Here), but I didn't catch that point about "eloheinu". The obvious connection between 1 Cor. 8:6 and the Shema is Paul's use of the word "one" when he refers to "one God" and "one Lord". Another fact I like to highlight about the passage is that Paul uses the terms "gods" and "lords" in the pagan context as synonyms. If Paul had said that pagan gods were ontologically higher/superior than pagan lords, then Unitarians could have argued that Paul taught God the Father was higher/superior than the Lord Jesus. But Paul seems to use the terms synonymously for both the pagan and Christian contexts. In which case, Jesus and the Father are (or can be seen as) in some sense equals, even if in another sense Jesus may be (functionally?) subordinate to the Father. As I noted in the link to my comments above, if New Testament Christians were Unitarians, then it would have been wise to reserve the term kurios for the Father alone. Since that's the word used to translate the tetragrammaton into the LXX. While also only using the term theos to refer to Jesus. Since both in both Greek and Hebrew most (if not all) of the various words for God/gods (el, elohim, eloah, theos etc.) can be used of the true God as well as lesser gods. By so doing, they could have prevented anyone from every thinking Jesus was, in some sense, also (along with the Father) YHVH. Instead, the NT authors not only used kurios to refer to Jesus, but many times took OT passages which originally referring to YHVH and applied them to Jesus.
See also my blogpost:
