How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?

Three revelations of one God which we have called "The Trinity".

Isiah 9:6 KJV
John 14:7-9 KJV

Three revelations of one God

This is really quite incoherent.

The term πρόσωπον ("person") isn't applied to most figures in the NT or OT. But how do we determine if they are "persons"? Easy. They can talk. To each other. And can understand each other. And have a mind. And have a will. And never are they confused with the same "person" they are interacting with. The NT is replete with example after example of persons interacting with one another, and in the very same contexts which you draw upon to try to say that Jesus (the "earthly counterpart") speaks to the "heavenly counterpart."

Uh oh! How does these two verses prove that God the Father is the word of God?

I have to say that your "Biblical" ignorance" is stunning! Hebrews 1:3 referring to Jesus Christ. "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His "PERSON, (that is God the Father) and upholding ALL things by the word of His power, (that is Jesus Christ power), when He himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" KJB

Trinity definition by theologians does not say 3 revelations.

God has never given us anything by which to formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs – carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. These would be qualities like eternal, self-existing, self-sustaining, transcendent, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, and ever-present. The character of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. He is HOLY, loving, just, righteous, gentle, merciful, and so on. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.

These attributes do not constitute a substance or a type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute a type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.

When we try to get our mind wrapped around the concept of a triune God that the scriptures describe as ONE GOD, we typically regard this as a paradox that is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp or explain, so we simply accept it and move on. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological disciplines. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications. If I may, I would like to offer a simple explanation that I believe might help us better grasp the idea of the oneness of the triadic unity.

Music is created around the structuring of chords. A chord is a collection of notes that form a harmonic. The ‘c’ cord for example, is a triad consisting of the notes c, e, and g. Each individual note within the triad functions in a specific relationship to the others creating a pleasing sound. These are three separate and distinct notes that function within given parameters yet, they are one chord. We do not have a problem understanding this concept as it relates to something as simple as music, but somehow when we think of God as a triadic ONE, our minds go into melt down. This illustration is by no means without its inadequacies and limitations but it does help us to understand the viability of the oneness of unity. Divine triadic function is a harmonic. It is an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God.

Scripture reveals God in three hypostatic distinctions. These three distinct functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. For now, I will only refer to each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triadic structure. The First Position (occupied by the Father) will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. It is also the position of command. The Second Position (that occupied by the Logos) will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea. He takes what is abstract (the idea of the Father) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position (occupied by the Holy Spirit) will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. He shapes a finished product.

These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my forty plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic.

We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.

I am not sure if there is a better word to be used here than essence, but this emphasizes my point that the nature of God cannot be understood within the parameters of human language. The use of this term is one of our own creation. This word conveys on one level the idea of material existence suggesting form or shape, but this definition does not seem to be expressed in scripture. At the same time, it defines intrinsic qualities and characteristics that may have nothing to do with form, shape, or substance. It often refers to intrinsic attributes that are abstract. For example, one cannot see love. One can only see the evidence of love when it is demonstrated in one's conduct. One cannot see kindness. One can only see the effects of kindness. This is how the word essence should be understood in relation to the nature of God. It is important that we do not equate essence with matter, form, or some type of spiritual equivalent to material substance when speaking of God. Remember, we are attempting to use human language to explain what is unexplainable this side of the eternal dimension. There have been many attempts to create models to help us understand the unity of ‘One’ God. I suppose I am no different in this regard. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?

what about Image with the Son being the Image of the invisible EL(God, Theos, Elohim)? Can you please speak on that. Thank you.

Are you asking in regard to Heb 1:3 or Phil 2:6 which uses two different words which means essentially the same thing?

Also, the Holy Spirit indwells believers who are yet sinners, which is why we can grieve Him. The Holy Spirit contends with man in our fallen state which is an immense undertaking. The Holy Spirit was not given till after the Son ascended back to Heaven and was Glorified after accomplishing our Salvation in obedience to the Father and out of love for us and His Father.

Why can't he be three?

Yes, both please if you like or even either one. Thank you. Your previous explanations were very helpful and appreciated.

Jesus is the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit

Very well. Let me just do this. I will begin with Phil 2 and then move to Heb 1. I think in the end you will understand why. It will be a lot of reading, but I think you will find it most helpful. I'll try to have it for you within the hour, more or less.