How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?

Yes, Jesus became man.

Notice, I said "Jesus became man," NOT "the Father became man."

The pre-existent Christ who existed together with God, became a man, and while on earth, He communed through prayer with God the Father (a distinct "person"), not His "heavenly" soul. Like men do not pray to their "other-realm-like self." Men (like Christ) pray to God the Father, and are distinct from God the Father. Such is Christ. He is distinct from God the Father, and will forever remain so and has forever been.

Yes, it does answer the question. It acknowledges the Father as the "one God," but also acknowledges Christ as the "one Lord" in its Jewish historical context, as all the surrounding OT allusions in 1 Cor. 8-10 make clear. The problem is simple: You have a defunct view of the term, "Lord" and are not applying it the way Paul intends it to be taken. Who exactly is the "one Lord" in the OT?

In Malachi 1, who is the "Lord"? Some subordinate divine figure, second to the "one God"?
In Deut. 31-32 (which Paul heavily draws from), who is the "Lord"? Some subordinate divine figure, second to the "one God"?

What is this name of this "Lord" in the OT texts that Paul alludes (which I cover in Post #55)?

And not only does Paul identify Jesus as this "Lord," but also distinguishes Him as the one "through" whom are all things, from the one "from" whom are all things. This little thing called "intertextuality" is quite a nightmare for Unitarians, because it debunks the defunct view of Paul's use of the term, "Lord."

Was Jesus Christ 100% human. Yes or no.

the reason im asking this is the possible conflict that arises in other verses

This has been a topic I've studied for a very long time. I am really quite unaware of any "conflicting" passages, so long those passages are read in their contextual settings.

well thats why i was asking if you know the Lord ...Jesus is the one through whom and for whom all things were made....as you have pointed out in your texts

Yes. There is "one God," "from whom" are all things, and "one Lord," "through whom" are all things. By the use of the two titles ("God"/"Lord") and the two prepositional phrases ("for"/"through"), this is showing distinction between two persons. However, where you lose site is in the fact that the two prepositional phrases are exclusively used of the God of Israel. The titles are also exclusively divine titles, especially when one considers the OT allusions weaved throughout the narrative.

Paul frequently speaks of Christ as "Lord" when alluding to OT texts which specifically refer to the God of Israel as "Lord." Eph. 4:7-13 is another example of Paul referring to Christ as "Lord" while alluding to Ps. 68:18. That Paul would then go on to pit idolatry against the commitment to Christ the "Lord" further supports this conclusion.

This is my emphasis verse in my questions

Colosians 1:15-17 "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."


everything created is through the son and for the son? is that your view? as per the scripture that is

You do not have GOD.
I have GOD, Every Breath I take.

I Am sorry you think it is Imaginary.

Yes. Col. 1:15-17, 1 Cor. 8:6, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1:10-11.

Yes. Col. 1:15-17, 1 Cor. 8:6, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1:10-11.

good now here is the catch of only restricting Jesus as the son...as quoted earler everything was made through the son and for the son but look at Hebrews 2

"God, for whom and through whom everything was made, chose to bring many children into glory. And it was only right that he should make Jesus, through his suffering, a perfect leader, fit to bring them into their salvation



Now it is not the son for whom and through whom everything what made it is actually for God in this verse and God actually appointed Jesus as the perfect leader....


so lets replace God in this verse with The Son okay to bring out the conflict im saying...


The Son, for whom and through whom everything was made, chose to bring many children into glory. And it was only right that he should make Jesus, through his suffering, a perfect leader, fit to bring them into their salvation...

Then what youre saying is that the Son and Jesus are two different persons

Youve ignored the Hebrews 2:10 ...replace the God part with son and see if it makes sense

so the one seated on the throne is the Father? I presume in Revelations 4:11

I didn't ignore Heb. 2:10. I cited the companion passage, Rom. 11:36 in Post #55. In fact, it was critical to my argument. If you take the argument I just made regarding Col. 1:16 and apply it to Heb. 1:1-3, then you will see the problem you are faced with. You have exactly the same issue there in Heb. 1:1-3 as you do with Col. 1:16.

Not to mention there is also another issue you face, as pointed out by quite a number of commentators on the passage: The fact that the prepositional clause ("through whom") is not exactly expressing the same thing as Heb. 1:1-3 is.

okay lets pick up the pace make things alot more easier....if possible we make it fast in our responses....is Jesus the lamb?

okay lets pick up the pace make things alot more easier....if possible we make it fast in our responses....is Jesus the lamb?

Of course.

I do want to say briefly, I do think Christ's activities in creation correspond with YHWH's. Don't think I'm trying to distinguish Christ from YHWH, when I have been making the connections to YHWH since I first posted. All I am attempting to do is show a distinction of persons. It does not matter if like terms are used of the Father and the Son, when clear distinction of persons are made in texts which discuss Christ's pre-existence.

Even in Heb. 1:10-11, an active verb is used of Christ, but you still cannot overlook the fact that the narrator sets Heb. 1 as a discourse between the Father speaking to His Son, nor can you ignore the fact that God was working "through" Christ (Heb. 1:1-3). My take is that it is God, actively working in and through Christ, who laid the foundations of the earth. God said to the Son, "You, Lord, laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands."

Revelations 17:11-14
“The scarlet beast that was, but is no longer, is the eighth king. He is like the other seven, and he, too, is headed for destruction. 12 The ten horns of the beast are ten kings who have not yet risen to power. They will be appointed to their kingdoms for one brief moment to reign with the beast. 13 They will all agree to give him their power and authority. 14 Together they will go to war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will defeat them because he is Lord of all lords and King of all kings. And his called and chosen and faithful ones will be with him.”

1 timothy 6:15-16
"For, At just the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of all kings and Lord of all lords. 16 He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No human eye has ever seen him, nor ever will. All honor and power to him forever! Amen"

Now youve correctly said that Jesus is the lamb which he is but look at this verses ....the lamb will defeat the beats because he is the King of kings and the lord of lords....now if we go to the book of timothy we get to see the king of kings and the lord of lords but this time this king will reveal Christ at the appointed time that is... but we have just seen that the King of Kings is the lamb ....so how is the lamb revaling christ and they are one and the same ... in addition the king of kings and the lord of Lords (the lamb) is the only one that can never die....but Jesus died ....no human eye has ever seen him (the king of Kings and the Lord of Lords) but people saw Jesus and even ate with him ....so does it mean that paul is crazy...No! what People saw was the man Jesus Christ no one has seen the true nature of Jesus....even his face ...they saw the physical image of the invisible God....and thats why paul says there is one mediator between Man and God the man Jesus Christ.. that is who people saw....we have not seen his true nature as the Father but we will one day as revelations says

Revelations 22:3-4
No longer will there be a curse upon anything. For the throne of God and of the Lamb will be there, and his servants will worship him. 4 And they will see his face, and his name will be written on their foreheads....

The throne of God and of the lamb not two thrones...and his servants will worship him and they will see his face....Finally the only way we can see the king of Kings and the Lord of Lords (the lamb) in his actual form is if we get to conquer the world....we saw him but as the son not as the father...because that was the purpose of the son to save but after salvation is a done deal the son will be humbled but from rev 22....Jesus is still in power

I guess I don't see the problem. But first, let's discuss the elephant in the room:

You seem to be taking 1 Tim. 6:15-16 as a reference to the Father. And then trying to connect that back to Rev. 17, where the Lamb is identified with the same titles.

However, there are problems. While it is certainly plausible that 1 Tim. 6:15-16 is a reference to the Father, some commentators believe it to be a reference to the Lord Jesus, but not because the Lord Jesus is the Father. The NIV here does us a disfavor, and includes a word ("God") that is only supplied by the translator. The reason the translator supplies the term ("God"), is because they take v. 16 ("whom no human being has seen") as a reference to the Father. However, other exegetes understand the phrase ("whom no human being has seen") as being in apposition to "unapproachable light." Therefore, it is not "God" that no human has never seen, but the "unapproachable light" which "no human being has seen nor is able to see." And thus, they understand the text as a reference to Christ, and no one "has seen nor is able to see" His "unapproachable light."

The point is, 1 Tim. 6 may not really be of any help to you. But even if it were to refer to the Father, it does not make the necessary connections you are trying to make in Rev. 17. Since when do (shared) titles make Christ "the Father"? We don't hold that same standard to anyone else in Scripture, hence, when a disciple is referred to an "apostle," we don't then go trying to turn the "apostle Paul" into the "apostle John." If anything, shared titles is not really what you need to be pointing to. Rather, it is the distinction of functions and roles that you seem to overlook.

When it comes to pre-existence texts, there is no two ways about it: God "creates" in and through Christ, which is really the issue. If Christ pre-existed as "the Father," then Col. 1:16, Jn. 1:1-3, Heb. 1:1-3 make little or no sense.

so lets re read that verse again....At just the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of all kings and Lord of all lords ..... dont rely much on commentators look at the wordings...rember what Jesus said...No one has seen the Father at any time....this verse the timothy verse can be inteprated that way....so lets reread the verse using the NKJV
and the KJV
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen-KJV

who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man
has seen or can see to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.-NKJV

greek bible

ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται· ᾧ τιμὴ καὶ κράτος αἰώνιον· ἀμήν.
literal translation
the only one who has immortality, the light of unapproachable , whom no man has seen nor can see; to whom is honor and eternal state; amen.


....whom means when referring to a particular person or when adding information about a person just mentioned

so whom in this verse is not the light friend rather the being ...who we have just learnt is the lamb....look commentators are essential but that doesnt necessarily mean they are right ...and that is pure evidence...

I'm going to break this down in a way that will make it easy on you. But first, you need to confess you do not know the language. It shows on multiple fronts. Your "translation" is quite flawed, because you are trying to parse words without recognizing basic Greek grammar.

First of all, the term, "who" or "whom" in the first part of v. 16 is supplied by the translator and is not actually in the Greek text. The term, is however, in the latter half of the passage, which is placed in apposition to "unapproachable light." Second, your "literal translation" parses φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον as "the light of unapproachable." But can I just point out that the phrase is not in the genitive case? Therefore, "the light of unapproachable" is technically, "not so literal."

A literal translation of the text would be something of this effect,

"the one having immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, to which no man has seen... ."

It is quite clear you are having trouble understanding basic Greek tenses. It may also do you some good to saturate yourself in critical commentaries so you can better understand.