Here's a great debate between Dale Tuggy (Unitarian) vs. Chris Date (Trinitarian). I'm a Trinitarian, but I think I'm not being biased when I say that Chris Date won the debate against the foremost philosophically minded Unitarian living today.
Debate - Dr. Dale Tuggy vs. Chris Date "Is Jesus Human and not Divine?"
The following is a link to Steve Hays' blogpost where he addresses Unitarian prooftexts from a Trinitarian point of view. His comments aren't meant to be exhaustive, but quick responses. I added my own comments in the combox too.
The following is a link to Anthony Rogers excellent series of videos on the Trinity in the Bible. Both Old Testament and New Testament. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THEM:
I'm open to the possibility that the "us" and "our" in passages like Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 [cf. Isa. 6:8] include God's angels and/or the "sons of God" and/or the Divine Council. That's within the pale of Evangelical orthodoxy. As Michael Heiser's increasingly popular views on the Divine Council demonstrates [see his YouTube videos and his website on the topic].
However, the majority of Evangelicals believe that the "us" and "our" passages in the Old Testament are allusions to the person of the Trinity. This blogpost will be an ever growing and added to resource on the arguments and evidences for the Trinitarian interpretation.
In the 2nd half of the following video, Anthony Rogers makes a strong Biblical and theological case for why the "us" and "our" passages should be interpreted in a way that affirms some kind of plurality in a monotheistic conception of God [e.g. in Trinitarianism] as opposed to strict monotheism as found in rabbinic Judaism, Islam and New Testament based Unitarians.
The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections (The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)
Anti-Trinitarians commonly appeal to pluralis majestatis [or pluralis majestaticus] to explain passages like Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:22 and Gen. 11:7 [etc.]. I'll be gathering links, resources and quotes that undermine that explanation in this blogpost. So, the blogpost will continue to grow as I find such materials.
In the following video Anthony Rogers shows why that proposed explanation doesn't work.
The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections
(The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)
Among other things, Anthony Rogers points out that while the Plural of Majesty is wildly popular among anti-Trinitarians, it's altogether rejected by Hebrew scholars as a viable explanation.
Rogers states:
While one could loosely use the phrase "plural of majesty" as a way of referring to the Bible's use of nouns like "elohim" for God, which is technically plural in form but ordinarily functions as a singular, this ISN'T TRUE when it comes to verbs and pronouns or certain participles in Hebrew. Such as one finds in the underlying Hebrew text of Genesis 1:26 or companion texts like [Genesis] 3:22 and [Genesis] 11:7 where God likewise speaks in the plural. As the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Lingustics states:
//The pluralis majestatis appears most frequently in nouns...but may also be used with some nominalized adjectives...[and] some participles. There are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis...'Let us make man in our image' (Gen. 1:26) has occasionally been explained as a pluralis majestatis, but comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations."//
Rogers goes on to cite professor of Old Testament at Andrews University Gerhard Hasel as saying [or writing]:
"...there are no certain examples of plurals of majesty with either verbs or pronouns...the verb used in Genesis 1:26 ('asah) is never used with a plural of majesty. There is no linguistic or grammatical basis upon which the 'us' can be considered a plural of majesty."
Rogers goes on to quote Claus Westermann who was a professor at the University of Heidelberg:
"The plural of majesty does not occur in Hebrew..., so this older explanation has been completely abandoned today."
Rogers goes on to point out that if the plural of majesty were correct, then Gen. 3:22 would not say [as translated in English] "Behold, the man has become like ONE of Us." Rather it would say, "Behold, the man has become like Us" (without the phrase "one of").
Rogers goes on to quote Classical and Biblical scholar Tayler Lewis:
"Of all these views the pluralis majestaticus has the least support. It is foreign to the usus loquendi of the earliest language; [and] it is degrading instead of honoring to Deity..."
Here's a link to the Bible.ca website which doesn't appear to be fully Evangelical in its theology, but it does affirm the Doctrine of the Trinity. The following article deals with the pluralis majestatis issue.
"Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc." (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )
"This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this "us" and "our." It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: "and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" (NASB). God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together--without ceasing to be one God." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a "plural of majesty")
"The best answer that they [Old Hebrew lexicographers and grammarians] could give was that the plural form used for the name (or title) of God was the 'pluralis majestatis,' that is the plural of majesty...to say nothing of the fact that it is not at all certain that the 'pluralis majestatis' is ever found in the Old Testament, there is an explanation much nearer at hand and much simpler, and that is, that a plural name was used for the one God, in spite of the intense monotheism of the Jews, because there is a plurality of person in the one Godhead." (The God of the Bible, R. A.Torrey, 1923, p 64)
"Another very popular view in modem times is that God uses the plural, just as kings do, as a mark of dignity (the so-called "plural of majesty"), but it is only late in Jewish history that such a form of speech occurs, and then it is used by Persian and Greek rulers (Esdr. iv. 18; 1 Mace. x. 19). Nor can the plural be regarded as merely indicating the way in which God summons Himself to energy, for the use of the language is against this (Gen. ii. 18; Is. xxxiii. 10)." (Trinity, A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830)
The following are some works and excerpts by John Gill where he deals with Christ's incarnation. I linked to archive.org's "Wayback Machine" of links to www.pbministries.org because the pbministries.org website isn't consistently online.
The following is a comment I made in a discussion I had in a Facebook group regarding the distinct person of the Word of the LORD/YHVH/Yahweh/Yehovah/Jehovah in the Old Testament as well as His visible form. Unitarians sometimes deny the personal preexistence of Jesus in the Old Testament. Trinitarians generally believe that the Word of the LORD/YHVH in the Old Testament along with the specific Angel of the LORD/YHVH is the preexistent Jesus (i.e. a Christophany of Jesus). Some Unitarians will deny that the Word of YHVH was a person and that He had a visible form. They claim it was just an audible voice. The following is an exegesis of Samuel chapter 3 that supports the Trinitarian view.
[In the course of the discussion, I wrote:]
That doesn't do justice to
what the OT says regarding the Word of YHVH. Because he could be seen at
times (e.g. as He did to Abram [in a vision] Gen. 15:1). In Samuel 3 it says that "And the word of the LORD was rare in those days; there was no frequent V̲I̲S̲I̲O̲N̲" (v. 1). After
Samuel is called by YHVH twice and twice Samuel goes to Eli thinking
Eli called him, verse 7 says, "Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and
t̲h̲e̲ ̲W̲o̲r̲d̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲L̲O̲R̲D̲ had not yet been
*̲*̲*̲R̲E̲V̲E̲A̲L̲E̲D̲*̲*̲*̲ to him." Implying a visible form. Notice
that the Word of the LORD is also simply identified as YHVH in the
passage too. Then in verse 10 it says, "And the
LORD C̲A̲M̲E̲ ̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲S̲T̲O̲O̲D̲, calling as at other times,". Notice
that it wasn't just an audible voice, but a visible form STOOD before
Samuel. Then in verse 15b it says, "...And Samuel was afraid to tell the V̲I̲S̲I̲O̲N̲ to Eli." Again, not merely an audible voice. Finally,
in verse 21 it says, "And the LORD A̲P̲P̲E̲A̲R̲E̲D̲ again at Shiloh,
for the LORD R̲E̲V̲E̲A̲L̲E̲D̲ himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of
the LORD." Similarly in Jeremiah chapter 1 the Word
of YHVH is sometimes referred simply as YHVH and is apparently in a
visible form. Jeremiah says the Word of YHVH came and spoke. In fact, in
verse 9 it says of YHVH (evidently the same person as the Word of YHVH)
"Then the LORD P̲U̲T̲ ̲O̲U̲T̲ ̲H̲I̲S̲ ̲H̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲T̲O̲U̲C̲H̲E̲D̲
my mouth." Indicating it wasn't merely an audible voice but a visible
form that had a hand that could touch Jeremiah. These are just some places in
the OT that I could cite to document this phenomena. Another would be
the encounter of Moses at the burning bush. And others.
As a Trinitarian I like the idea that the sign above the cross of Jesus formed the acrostic YHWH (or YHVH). BUT, there's just no evidence for it from the New Testament (even if it may have had that acrostic). The following is a good video demonstrating that the evidence just isn't there.
We Trinitarians shouldn't use bad arguments to support our views. Because once they've been debunked, it tends to inoculate people from considering the plausibility of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Ethan Smith is another lesser known Trinitarian apologist that I would like to recommend. If I recall, Ethan is half Filipino. If so, it's refreshing to find a fellow Filipino who also takes seriously the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Ethan Smith's videos on YouTube are insightful and have special relevance in addressing anti-Trinitarian arguments that are used by various sects in 3rd world countries like the Philippines. For example, the Filipino sect Iglesia Ni Cristo.
The following is a classic article by renowned scholar Bruce Metzger. It was written 1953 and therefore not all of its criticism of the New World Translation applies to modern editions and revisions of the NWT.
Robert M. Bowman Jr. is well known for being one of the best defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity among Evangelicals. Here are links to his articles where he deals with Unitarian Dale Tuggy's criticism of his defense of the doctrine.
Here's an interesting webpage I found that documents some of the
places in the Targums where the "Word of the Lord" is either personified
or is a stand in for YHVH. Showing again how the concept of a plurality
of persons in God (the "Two Powers in Heaven" concept) was already
floating around and in the radar screens of some Jews before the
Christian era. From which the author of GJohn in all likelihood was
alluding to and amplifying in chapter 1.
The following resources linked below are by Jewish scholars Daniel Boyarin and Alan F. Segal. Neither believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Nevertheless they documents the fact that there were many (not all) Jews before, during and after the time of Jesus who believed in at least two persons who were Divine according to the Hebrew Scriptures.
I don't take a dogmatic stance on the meaning of monogenes . I'm open to either interpretation. However, it is interesting that the tide of scholarly consensus is slowly turning back to the traditional interpretation.
