Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 10

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
(Genesis 1:26)

Troki takes issue with the idea that this supports the Trinity. Troki argues that the next verse is singular in form. God created man in his image. Troki also suggests that God's use of "we" both in this passage and also in passages such as Genesi 18:17 and 11:7 indicates that God is involving the angels. The problem is that man is made in the image of God, not in the image of God and angels.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
(Genesis 1:27)

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,
(Isaiah 44:24)

Troki also lists verses that spell out explicitly that there is one God. Period. The Tanakh explicitly excludes from the category of deity everyone but Yahweh. this is found in Deuteronomy 6:4 and 4:35. It is also found all throughout Isaiah 40-55, Jeremiah 10:6,  Hosea 13:4, Psalms 86:10, Nehemiah 9:6, and 1 Chronicles 17:20.

Troki challenges the view that God is compound, since to divide God into multiple persons would strip his deity, making him like created matter.

Troki also gives standard arguments against the Trinity, which I have already answered.
http://messianicdrew.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesus-as-god-clearing-ground.html
http://messianicdrew.blogspot.com/2010/12/jesus-as-god-biblical-case.html

Remember the following important distinction:

Monotheism - There is one God
Unitarianism - God is one person

The Tanakh teaches monotheism, but not unitarianism. I also do not see how it follows from God being multiple persons that he is not omnipresent. Generally, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God, being one soul, has multiple centers of self-consciousness. Omnipresence is just the doctrine that God is aware of all that is happening, even though he is not located in space. Indeed, God cannot be dependent upon space, since space had a beginning, while God did not.

I agree with Troki that God is not composed of parts, if by parts we mean separate beings. God is one being, and his three centers of self-consciousness are not distinct beings. This is similar to the Jewish doctrine that God is wise, and also God is powerful, and that his power is not his wisdom, but that does not mean that God's power and God's wisdom are separate beings. The fact that God has multiple attributes does not violate the unity of God any more than the fact that he has multiple centers of self-consciousness violates it.

Troki also argues that there have always been Christians who denied the deity of Jesus. This is a bit of trickery. There have been people who claimed to be Christians who denied the divinity of Jesus. There are also people, like John Shelby Spong, who are atheists and yet claim to be Christians. Would Troki consider Mordechai Kaplan to be part of the same religion as him? This is why Troki's argument in this area is worthless.

So the question is: what alternative explanation is there for God using the first person plural in referring to himself? Nehemia Gordon wrote an article a while back trying to explain this, but instead of coming up with an alternative explanation, he instead demonstrates his incompetence in argumentation. Specifically, he says that the plural of God is a royal "we" and that it involves the heavenly council. The dual explanation is a violation of Occam's razor. We have no warrant for either explanation, and to posit both to explain one feature is to multiply causes beyond necessity.

Regarding the majestic plural, Gordon's case requires a forced interpretation of Scripture. The royal "we" is completely foreign to the ancient world. Daniel 2:26 and Job 18:3 are not counterexamples.

“This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation.
(Daniel 2:36)

“How long will you hunt for words? Consider, and then we will speak. Why are we counted as cattle? Why are we stupid in your sight?
(Job 18:2-3)

Regarding Daniel,

1. The language is late, about 1,000 years after the Pentateuch was written. Languages change, and a majestic plural in a book this late is not evidence of a majestic plural in the Pentateuch. To say otherwise is to commit a fallacy of anachronism. It is like saying that the Flintstones supported homosexuality since the theme song includes the phrase "you'll have a gay old time."

2. The language is Aramaic, not Hebrew. Use of a majestic plural in one language would provide very little support for its existence in a sister language.

3. None of the commentators I have read have indicated that the plural is a royal "we." Daniel was not a king, nor was he of a royal bloodline. Possibly, Daniel is including his companions here, who may have helped him interpret the dream. On the other hand, this could be an editorial "we" and could be translated as I.

Regarding Job,

Bildad was not a king, nor was he royal. The comparison of his conversation with Job to a royal court is a textbook case of eisegesis i.e. reading one's theology into the text. The companions of Job do not refer to themselves as a royal court. Bildad is talking about himself and his companions. Gordon complains that "cattle" (בְּהֵמָה) is in the singular, so Bildad can only be talking about himself. This is simply not true. The word can occur in the singular to express a category, not just a single animal.
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/behemah_929.htm

This is why all translations use the term "cattle" or "beasts" rather than the singular "an animal."