Unitarian: //I think the Bible is clear on how many true gods are there, don't you?//
If you understood what Trinitarianism teaches, then you'd know that Trinitarians believe there is one true God, and that Jesus as well as the Father and the Spirit are the one true God. There are different formulations/conceptions of the Trinity. My default position is the standard Evangelical one where God is one in being and three in person. Rocks have being. They have or are stuff. But rocks aren't persons. While humans also have being but are also persons. A contradiction is defined as saying X and non-X are true at the same time and/or in the same sense. It WOULD be a contradiction to say that God is one in person and three in person. Just as it would be a contradiction to say that God is one in being and three in being. But most Trinitarians say that God is one in being and three in person. Therefore there is no contradiction since being and person are two distinct categories. God is one "what" and three "whos". Meaning three persons [some would even say centers of consciousnesses] share the one being [i.e. stuff] of God.
A case could be made that 1 John 5:20 teaches Jesus is also the "true God". Seem my blogpost here:
//Don't you think it is possible that God could have easily said that He is also three in an unequivocal manner as He did declare His unitary existence in the Shema?//
The Bible teaches the concept of Progressive Revelation where He reveals truth fuller and fuller, clearer and clearer down through Redemptive History. So, the Trinity is clearer in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. Yet, it's in the OT as well too. Some Trinitarians think it's only hinted at in the OT. While other Trinitarians think it's clearly and explicitly taught. I'm somewhere in between. I recommend Anthony Rogers debates and videos [some of which are at his channel] where he argues that the Trinity is explicitly taught in the OT. I think Rogers is the best living defender of the Trinity. Start with his debates on the Angel of the Lord where he argues for Jesus being the Angel of the Lord [links below].
Messianic Jews themselves point to the fact that the Shema mentions God three times as a remez [i.e. hint] of the Trinity [see David H. Stern's "Jewish New Testament Commentary".
//(2) Remez ("hint") — wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p'shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.// Stern page 12
Regarding Mark 12:29 and Jesus' recitation of the Shema, Stern wrote:
//...Likewise, here in the Sh'ma (Deuteronomy 6:4) there are two such r'mazim: (1) the triple reference to God, and (2) the use of the word "echad," which often means a multiple unity (such as "one" cluster of grapes or "one" bundle of sticks) instead of "yachid," which nearly always excludes multiple oneness.// Stern page 97
I disagree with the latter part of what Stern says. He should have phrased it this way: "echad" only MEANS "one", but it can REFER to a complex unity or oneness. He's wrong in saying it can MEAN complex one.
Moreover, as I said above in another thread, a number of scholars are in agreement that because of the grammar, vocabulary, wording, phraseology and syntax, in 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul is adapting the Greek Septuagint's [i.e. the LXX] translation of the Shema and including Jesus within it. What's interesting is that Paul uses the phrase "one Lord" not for the Father, but for the Son. One would expect that given the Hebrew context that it refers to the tetragrammaton [i.e. Yahweh/Yehovah], that Paul would apply "one Lord" to the Father. While applying the Greek phrase "one God" to the Son since the Hebrew elohim is commonly also used for beings other than Almighty God. Yet, counter-intuitively Paul predicates Jesus as being the "one Lord/Yehovah" of the Shema. That Paul is also affirming the equality of the Father and the Son can be seen by how Paul uses "gods" and "lords" in the previous verse.
1 Cor. 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth---as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"---
Notice that Paul refers to the pagan gods and lords as if the two terms are equvalent and interchangeable. He doesn't imply that pagan gods are higher or greater than pagan lords. If he had, then a Unitarian could argue that by using "God" for the Father and "Lord" for the Son, he was indicating that the Father is greater than the Son. Instead, just as pagan gods and lords are equivalents/interchangeable terms, so Paul is implying and equality between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
There are many other arguments for the Trinity, but those are just some. I've argued for the Trinity at my blog TrinityNotes.blogspot.com. Though, sometimes when one clicks on the link FROM FACEBOOK it is said to be a website that's not safe. I don't know why that is. Maybe I need to format my blog differently.
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Robert Bowman
The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scripture by Anthony Rogers
Anthony Rogers' Youtube channel:
A Playlist of SOME of Anthony Rogers' Debates in Video:
Anthony Rogers' Articles at Answering Islam on the Trinity and Islam:
ALL of Anthony Rogers' Debates in MP3:
//My question is why this doctrine wasn't enunciated clearly if it's essential for one to understand Christology or soteriology in the first place.//
The New Testament isn't a systematic theology book. The Gospels record biographies of Jesus when the disciples were still growing in their understanding of the Gospel and all its implications. They didn't even know [or were fully convinced] that the Gospel was supposed to go to the Gentiles. They had to grow in their understanding of in what sense the Law was and wasn't binding on believers [both Jew and Gentile]. They had to grow in their understanding of the place of the ceremonial laws. They had to grow in their understanding theologically in other ways. Moreover, most of the NT is composed of occassional letters written on the occasion of addressing specific topics X, Y, Z. For example, as important as the Lord's Supper is, there's only one post Ascension passage that covers it with any depth. That's why for example, Paul doesn't mention many historical nuggets and saying of Jesus even though there is indication that he was aware of some. This absence is something many atheists like to point out to argue for Mythicism [cf. Richard Carrier]. Much of the epistle's teaching presupposes prior instruction in the faith. That's why it presupposes things like the fully deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit.
In fact, non-Messianic Jewish scholars [like Alan Segal, Daniel Boyarin et al.] admit that prior to the birth of Christ and lasting till past the 1st century CE when Jews were threatened by the growth of Christianity, it was within Jewish orthodoxy to believe in the "Two Power in Heaven" doctrine during the time of the lives of the Apostles. It's within that milieu that we must read the NT. Not in post 2nd Temple Period rabbinic Judaism that was self-consciously mono-personal strict monotheistic in opposition to Christianity. To the point where by the time of Maimonides, he started describing God as yachid instead of echad.
There's a general consensus among scholars now [including Bauckham, Wright, Fee et al.] that 1 Cor. 8:6 has Paul Christianizing the Shema and in some way including Jesus in the Shema. I've briefly argued this in some of the other threads in this post.
See also this eye-opening article which strongly suggests that the Paul's common opening for his letters which say, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" is an articulation of that Christianized Shema.
Regarding the personality and full Deity of the Holy Spirit, see my blogpost here:
Regarding the threeness within the Godhead see my blogpost here:
When one does an exhaustive study of the NT, one sees this presupposition of the Trinity. I've documented much of this in my blog: https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/ Or better yet, watch Anthony Rogers videos.
The pluritarian nature of God is also seen in the OT in many ways, for example the word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; both of these words are plural nouns in Hebrew.
When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God. An all wise God would not inspire His revelation to use such language if Unitarianism were true. However, if some form of pluritarian monotheism is true [as in Trinitarianism], then such language makes perfect sense
////Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following:
1. Plural Verbs
o Genesis 20:13
English Translation: God caused me to wander
Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They caused me to wander
o Genesis 35:7
English Translation: God appeared
Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They appeared
o 2Samuel 7:23
English Translation: God went
Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They went
o Psalms 58:12
English Translation: God that judges
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם
Literally: Gods that judge
2. Plural Adjectives
o Deuteronomy 5:26
English Translation: living God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום
Literally: Living Gods8
o Joshua 24:19
English Translation: holy God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם
Literally: Holy Gods
3. Plural Nouns
o Ecclesiastes 12:1
English Translation: thy Creator
Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ
Literally: Creators
o Isaiah 54:5
English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband
Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ
Literally: Makers, Husbands9
o Malachi 1:6
English Translation: Master
Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם
Literally: Masters10
o Daniel 7:18
English Translation: Most High
Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן
Literally: Most High Ones
footnotes:
8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”
9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”
10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form.////
Even non-Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Benjamin Sommer, a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary (that’s right, the Jewish Theological Seminary) wrote in his recent book, The Bodies of God:
“Some Jews regard Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion, both because of the doctrine of the trinity (how can three equal one?) and because of Christianity’s core belief that God took bodily form. . . . No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scripture contains the fluidity traditions [[[referring to God appearing in bodily form in the Tanakh]]], whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores the triune God.”
That statement by Sommer is more consistent with Modalism rather than Trinitarianism. But I quote it to show that even Jewish scholars recognize how in the OT God revealed Himself in a plurality of ways that opens the door to options like Trinitarianism.
Even the pre-Christian Jewish Aramaic Targumim often personified the Word of the Lord. See:
Word of the Lord in the Targums
Given all this background and more [I've only scratched the surface], one should be reading the New Testament in that light. IF one does, then the implicit Trinitarianism of the NT will be seen in every nook and cranny.
//Where in the Bible does God define himself/itself as a "what" being which has "whos"?//
It doesn't. That's a post Biblical way of articulating what the New Testament logically requires. Admittedly, it's not the only Trinitarian formulation. There are others as I admitted earlier. You have to remember that the NT was mostly written by Jews that were influenced by Greek thought, but not so much that they were Hellenized. The Greeks were very much into the philosophy of ontology and metaphysics. The Jews, and the Semitic mindset were not. That's why the NT doesn't delve into the metaphysics of how EXACTLY/PRECISELY God is three-in-one. Yet, humans and theologians can't help but ask metaphysical questions and give some answers. Both Trinitarians AND Unitarians ask metaphysical questions and give answers regarding who/what is Jesus and the Holy Spirit and what is their relation to the Father. When one factors in all the Biblical data and uses the philosophical tool of logic, I'm convinced that something like the Trinity must be true. Otherwise the Bible cannot be a consistent infallible book.
See The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Robert Bowman
//1 John 5:20 need not mean that Jesus is the true God. It's still ambiguous which is the very substance of my question to you.//
But that's just one data point out of hundreds that point to a Trinity.
People have this false conception of evidence that in order to be evidence for a proposition it needs to "carry the day," as it were, on this evidence. It needs to be able to fully support and fully justify the conclusion. That's simply incorrect. A piece of evidence can raise the probability for a proposition being true, without by itself being sufficient to justify that proposition. All the evidence must be weighed together cumulatively. When done so, something like Trinitarianism MUST be true. [bolded part is a quote from Jonathan McLatchie
HERE].
//You reading a Trinity into the Shema is a bit of a stretch.//
It's the general consensus among NT scholars precisely because of the grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phraseology of 1 Cor. 8:6 corresponds so well with the Shema as found in the LXX. Again, this is one of many data points that point to the Trinity.
//Now are we going to ignore the fact that Jesus was made Lord and Christ?//
Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Jesus was Lord and Christ prior to Acts 2:36. The word "made" there means to make evident. We Trinitarians argue that Jesus is one of the YHVH of the OT. Many Trinitarians also argue Jesus was the "Angel of the LORD" in the OT. Since the Angel of the LORD was also YHVH [see Rogers' evidence], therefore Jesus was kurios even prior to His incarnation. Even Phil. 2:6-11 teaches a personal preexistence of Jesus where He was in the form of God [i.e. God by nature].
//Paul in the same book v 15:28 says that Jesus isn't equal to God in the sense you are implying.//
That passage is perfectly consistent with Trinitarianism given post-incarnational functional subordination of the Son to the Father. While some modern Christians reject pre-incarnational [as well as pre-creational] subordination of the Son to the Father, I don't. It was a standard view of earlier Trinitarians. BTW, this is part of the recent debate among my fellow Evangelicals regarding EFS/ESS/ERAS. I do lean toward ERAS [Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission] among the persons of the Trinity sans [apart from/"before"] creation. Eternal Functional Subordination is the more common term.
What's more "problematic" would be verse 24 which states, "He delivers the kingdom to God the Father". But that delivery cannot be thorough and complete. Otherwise it contradicts Dan. 7 which states that the Son of Man's [i.e. the Messiah's] Kingdom would be everlasting. The most obvious way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to say that this "delivery" is a presentation of the Kingdom by the Son to the Father as having completed His given task to subdue all creation and all of God's enemies. Also that as to his office as the human messiah Christ delievers the Kingdom to the Father. But as to His essential Divinity, the Son retains Kingdom authority.
