How do those who hold Trinitarian doctrine existed from the earliest days of the church explain the lack of debate about it in the New Testament?

Jeff Deuble in Christ Before Creeds says (p. 33-34) > The significant controversies about the Messiah that were strongly > contested in the New Testament were: his death by crucifixion, his > resurrection, and his subsequent ascension and glorification. [...] As > you read through the book of Acts you will discover that these are the > three facts that the apostles continue to preach and debate, > especially with Jews (Acts 2:22-36, 3:17-26, 5:29-32, 10:34-43, > 13:26-41, 17:2-4, 17:29-31, 26:19-23). [...] These basic > Christological tenets differed from previous perceptions, so they were > strongly proclaimed and debated from the inception of the church on > the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). Yet, he continues > Nowhere is there reference to a debate over Jesus being "fully human > and fully God," or being himself God or on the same level as God. It > doesn't appear at all on the landscape of first-century church > history, whereas it looms large, at center stage in the church history > of the fourth and fifth centuries. > > This silence is remarkable because the early church was strongly > Jewish and the Jews were strongly monotheistic. Any suggestion that > Jesus was *Yahweh*, or a part of *Yahweh*, or even equal to *Yahweh*, > would have been vehemently resisted, would it not? **This silence is > certainly difficult to explain if, as claimed by some, Trinitarian > doctrine existed from the outset, from the earliest days of the > church.** How do those who hold that Trinitarian doctrine existed from the earliest days of the Church respond to the sort of argument Deuble lays out here?