In a video by InspiringPhilosophy, Michael Jones recommended the following playlist of videos by Exploring Reality in proof of Jesus full and true Deity. See also my blogpost HERE.
The following is a YouTube Link to a Playlist of Videos of Anthony Rogers Debates which includes some that have been deleted from their original channel. David Wood had decided to delete most of his channel's videos and give the channel to a fellow Christian apologist. Some of the videos he deleted included debates that were uploaded onto another channel by someone unaffiliated with David Wood. But with David Wood's permission. Since Wood has repeatedly said that any of his video can be uploaded by anyone onto their own video channels.
Presumably the deleted video debates have been uploaded as audio on Anthony Rogers' mp3 Apple Podcast here:
The Analytic Christian is a Christian YouTube channel that focuses on philosophical theology. Jordan Hampton usually interviews experts in specific fields of philosophical theology. Here are some of the channel's Playlists that are directly relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Anthony Rogers, my favorite debater for the Trinity, presents an ongoing video series on the Old Testament Witness to the Trinity. This is a topic that I think is VERY important and useful. When done properly, this answers and addresses many objections and objectors to Christianity. If you can prove the Trinity is taught in the Old Testament, it proves that Christianity is the heir of Judaism to Jews, disproves Islamic monotheism and Islamic objections to the Trinity, and presents evidence for the truth of Christianity that ought to make atheist reconsider whether Christianity might actually be true.
Christian apologist Anthony Rogers and Islamic apologist Shabir Ally did a back-to-back debate on Nov. 14, 2020. Anthony Rogers is my favorite debater in favor the doctrine of the Trinity, and Shabir Ally is arguably the best Muslim apologist out there. So, these debates are a must watch.
One of my favorite passages that suggests that Jesus is divine is Gen. 4:1. I don't use it as a knockdown argument. It's not the first passage I go to in order to prove the full deity of Christ. But it's one of my favorite to use AFTER I've presented the other more solid evidences and arguments. Anthony Rogers does a great job presenting the evidence for why Gen. 4:1 suggests Jesus is fully God in his video series linked below. I consider Anthony Rogers the best living debater for the doctrine of the Trinity. See all his videos in his YouTube channel. Below is the link to his series on Gen. 4:1:
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 Anthony Rogers excellent series of videos on the Trinity in the Bible. Both Old Testament and New Testament. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THEM:
In another blogpost I quoted Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity. Dr. Sommer is a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary. The following video records audio from Sommer's lectures series on his book The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel where he concedes that the Christian understanding of the Trinity is technically consistent with Judaism.
Christian (and Jewish Messianic Believer in Jesus) Dr. Michael L. Brown, wrote
Interestingly, Dr. Benjamin Sommer, a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary (that’s right, the Jewish Theological Seminary), came to similar conclusions in his recent book, The Bodies of God. He wrote: “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.”
So, it appears that there are Jewish scholars who do not believe in Yeshua who can see what my dear friend Rabbi Blumenthal cannot. Let’s continue to pray for Rabbi Blumenthal!
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 theShema) 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.
[[UPDATE: Drew Lewis is now going by his real name Andrew Schumacher. "Drew" of course being short for "Andrew". For various legitimate reasons people go by pseudonyms. I have no problem with that. I myself use a nom de plume. What matters to me is the strength of their arguments.]]
Drew Lewis is a former Unitarian (from the Way International) who now defends the doctrine of the Trinity. Some of his material is so good that even informed Unitarians have recommended it to help sharpen their Unitarian arguments. For example, his video on Inconsistent Unitarian Arguments.
At 28:10 to 36:43, Rogers points out that while Christian scholarship from the time of B.B. Warfield has generally moved away (completely or more and more) from the position that the Trinity was revealed in the OT; many modern Jewish scholars have been going in the opposite direction. Suggesting something like the Trinity (or at least a Binity) was believed by some (sometimes even a majority of) Jews both before, during and after the time of Christ. Rogers then goes on to quote some of these contemporary Jewish scholars to that effect.
Anthony Rogers' articles at the Answering Islam website:
See also Rogers' article on the Gospel of Mark titled "Mark My Words" in the Puritan Reformed Journal, January 2015, Volume 7, Number 1 [HEREor HERE]. In the article he argues for Christ's deity from the Gospel of Mark.
EXCELLENT Articles by Anthony Rogers on the Trinity and Islam: