Against nincsnevem ad pluribus X

 Nincs:Even though you are waiting for such a precedent, you are after all waiting for a conceptual impossibility, because the Son is not only the first-born (prototokos) of the Father, but also his only-begotten

Me:That has nothing to do with whether he is part of the creation or not the two issues are distinct.

Hebrews ch.11:17NIV"By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,"

As you know Abraham did have another Son

And both Sons were begotten temporally.

The Bible even speaks of Christ as being begotten temporally regarding his resurrection.

Acts ch.13:33NIV"he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:

“ ‘You are my son;

today I have become your father.’ b"

He can be spoken of as monogenes here as well as he is the only one to have been raised directly by his God and Father he is the only Son Fathered directly by him every other Son of God would have at least one other to regard as parent by JEHOVAH's kindly favor.

So the fact that he was uniquely created does not mean that he is uncreated.

  The Bible clearly shows that JEHOVAH creates through preceding creations.

Genesis ch.6:7NIV"So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” "

 Of course none of the creatures on the earth at that time were directly created by JEHOVAH,they existed due to natural processes set in motion by JEHOVAH ,but because ALL (not most) of the information and energy that makes there emergence and preservation possible came out of JEHOVAH he justly takes credit for there existence.

Obviously the first link in this causal chain would possess a unique glory, and would be the unique Son of JEHOVAH.

 (monogenes), why should the Bible declare similar titles about others to mean that? I'd rather throw the ball back to you, so show me precedents when the term "firstborn" is used in the Bible in such a way, where membership is not a conceptual necessity (for example being born into the category), but the "firstborn of X" formula itself performs the classification. Because all your examples show that it's not the "firstborn of X" formula what implies category membership.

All of my examples? I gave no examples. I challenged you to provide an example where prototokos is used in a way that necessarily or even possibly excludes him either from the explicit or implicit set, your "response" is to try to answer a question with a question.

And this is a simple question either such examples exist or they don't maybe they are rare ,that's fine but if they are nonexistent as your nonresponse strongly suggest then that is a problem for your position.

Nincs:Malachi 2:10 and Ephesians 4:6: These passages affirm that God is the Creator and Father of all, but they do not exclude the Trinitarian understanding of God. The New Testament reveals the distinct persons within the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), each fully and equally God.

Me:To a committed trinitarian nothing falsifies their position the ideology has a lot in common with Darwinism that way and how could a position that its own advocates admit is incomprehensible possibly be falsified trinitarians hold the ultimate high ground in there own minds.

 What N.T shows is that the God and Father of Israel is the one God and Father of Jesus.

John 8:54 and Acts 3:13: Jesus acknowledges the Father as His God, aligning with His incarnate role. However, John 1:1, 1:14, and Colossians 1:15-17 affirm Christ’s divine nature and active role in creation, which aligns with the concept of the Trinity.

What about the unincarnated spirit the Father alone is the God Israel that is why we constantly read of THE God and HIS Son not their son your incarnation fudge is past its shelf life

Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” his God and Father is the MOST HIGH i.e WITHOUT equals thus making the JEHOVAH spoken of at psalm ch.83:18 if your God has two others who are equal to him he is not the JEHOVAH of scripture.

Nincs:The argument that "πρωτότοκος" implies group membership overlooks the contextual usage of the term to denote preeminence and authority. Scriptural examples show that "πρωτότοκος" can signify supremacy without implying that the subject is part of the group. In Colossians 1:15, the context clearly indicates Christ’s authority over creation, affirming His divine nature and role as Creator.

Me: The contrary claim that prototokos necessarily or even possibly excludes membership in the implicit or explicit set goes counter to the TOTALITY of scriptural precedent.

From thayer's:tropically Christ is called πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (partitive genitive (see below), as in τά πρωτότοκα τῶν προβάτων, Genesis 4:4; τῶν βοῶν, Deuteronomy 12:17; τῶν υἱῶν σου, Exodus 22:29), "

Genesis ch.4:4NKJV"Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering,"

Deuteronomy ch.12:17NKJV"You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine or your oil, of the firstborn of your herd or your flock, of any of your offerings which you vow, of your freewill offerings, or of the [f]heave offering of your hand. "

Exodus ch.22:29NKJV"“You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me."