**Hebrews 1:6** (NIV) says: > when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” My question is for Trinitarians, Modalists and Binitarians: ***Why was it necessary for God to give the command to his already perfectly loyal Angels to worship the second person or mode of the Godhead, whom** (one would assume) **they already always included in their worship?*** Quotes from Creeds or scholars of the different views, making sense out of this, are welcome.

There are trinitarians who believe in God in three persons, and there are binitarians who believe in God the Father and the Son but do not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and there are unitarians who believe in God the Father but neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. My question is, are there any Binitarians that profess belief in a different two of the Trinity. I have already asked about the Son and Spirit at Is there any theological model believing in God the Son and the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of God the Father? .

There are trinitarians who believe in God in three persons, and there are binitarians who believe in God the Father and the Son but do not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit. And there are unitarians who believe in God the Father but neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. My question is are there any Binitarians that profess belief in a different two of the Trinity. in the interest of asking one question at a time I will post another question asking about God the Father and the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Son.

In John 5:31, Jesus said the following: > **If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.** There is another > who testifies in my favour, and I know that his testimony about me is > true. ‘You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not > that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be > saved. John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a > time to enjoy his light. ‘I have testimony weightier than that of > John. For **the works that the Father has given me to finish – the > very works that I am doing – testify that the Father has sent me. And > **the Father** who sent me **has *himself* testified concerning me**. (John > 5:31-37) Jesus spoke for himself as the **Son of God**, but said "if I testify about myself, my testimony is *not* true". It means that his word alone would not suffice for the testimony to be established as proof legally in front of human judges. Jesus refers to John the Baptist as a human witness but adds that "he doesn't accept a human testimony" for "I receive not honour from men" (John 5:41 - KJV). Witnesses acceptable to Jesus' standards of perfection were "the works that the Father has given [Christ] to finish", and in connection with those works, "**the Father** who sent [Christ] **has *himself* testified concerning [Jesus]**. He repeated similar words in **John 8:17, 18** > In your own Law it is written that the testimony of ***two* witnesses** is > true. **I am *one* who testifies for myself**; my ***other* witness** is **the > Father**, who sent me. (John 8:17-18) Jesus says "in your own Law it is written that the testimony of *two* witnesses is true". He clearly follows that Law as well in **John 5:31-37** in regards to the legality of his witness. Who are the ***two* witnesses** Jesus mentions in John 8:17,18? **Himself** and **the Father**! According to the Athanasian Creed , the Trinity is “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;” and that you can’t “confound the persons nor divide the substance.” Albeit being 3 separate persons, they are **consubstantial** and “**coequal**” for “Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit” The persons are all almighty, “and yet they are not three almighties, but **one** almighty.... they are not three Gods, but **one** God.” It goes as far as to say that it is “forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.” The three persons of the Trinity are inseparable and **ONE** being. The Doctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis) says: > The subsistences [divine persons] then we say are perfect, that we > may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is > the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three > subsistences as being in each other , that we may not introduce a > crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is > no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having **the same > essence and dwelling in one another**, and being **the same in will, and > energy, and power, and authority, and movement**, so to speak, we > recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is > one God, and His word and Spirit. According to the theologian studies on the Lutheran Trinity Doctrine, Reiner Jansen said the following: > The"works of the Trinity ***cannot*** be lined up alongside one another in > such a way that they stand as three isolated and **disparate** events. The > work of any given person is always seen in relation to the work of the > other two persons. And so the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit are > not considered in and of themselves, but are seen entirely in the > light of the Trinitarian faith" (Jansen, 84) Dr. Charles P. Arand adds to this: > for there exists an intimate **interdependence**, one might even say a > mutual dependence among their works. James E. Dolezal states: > “The doctrine of divine simplicity teaches that (1) God is **identical** > with his existence and his essence and (2) that each of his attributes > is **ontologically** **identical** with his existence and with every other one > of his attributes.” > > *― James E. Dolezal, God without Parts: Divine > Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness* If the trinitarian dogma is true, that "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit… are one" (1. John 5:7 - KJV) **"ontologically identical"** in essence and being, then the "witness" they are bearing **about *each other*** is legally unacceptable by the Judaic Law that God himself established! Even if you say that God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are *different* persons of the God-Head, it would still be legally unacceptable due to the very nature of God's subsistence according to the Trinity dogma: **The three persons are **one and the same** being: GOD.** Legally speaking you cannot separate the witness from the being giving the witness. If the three persons of the Trinity are **ONE** in essence, nature, power, action, and will, and thus ***cannot*** say, act, and will differently from each other, then we cannot get three separate, distinct or **independent** testimonies from it, but only **one**. For there is no variation in point of view or dependence, that would warrant it to be accepted as a separate **independent** witness. Jesus' own words would apply that "if I testify about myself [my identity], my testimony is not true". It would mean that if any person of the God-Head, testifies about any other person of the God-Head or about the God-Head itself, according to the judicial Law established by God/YHWH himself, this testimony alone would not be acceptable to Jewish judges abiding to that Law.

**Hebrews 1:2 (KJV)** says about the Son of God: > [God] hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath > appointed **heir of all things**, by whom also he made the worlds; So God (the Father I suppose) has appointed his Son (Jesus) as heir of all things. How is this possible though, when Jesus is fully God, as the OT says about God in **1 Chronicles 29:11 (KJV)**: > Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the > victory, and the majesty: **for all that is in the heaven and in the > earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as > head above all.** How can God the Son be appointed heir of „all things“ if “all that is in the heaven and in the earth“ belongs to Him already? How can God the Son be exalted if God is already „exalted as head above all“? Does 1 Chronicles 29:11 speak about God the Father or about the triune God? If it’s speaking about God the Father only, does that mean that God the Son is below God the Father in authority, power and „wealth“ so that God the Father could appoint Him heir? If so, why wasn’t Jesus already appointed heir before „these last days“?

In descriptions of who or what the Holy Spirit is in Binitarianism, it is described variously as the power of God, or the Spirit of the Father or Spirit of the Son. Reference: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/93194/60459 In Binitarianism is the Holy Spirit a person? Granting that Binitarianism is non-orthodox, there may be multiple answers, a full answer here will cover all cases.

The following is from a Binitarian answer to a question on the nature of the Holy Spirit: > Instead, the term "holy spirit" could refer directly to the Father and Son, as they are each holy and are each spirits, but more commonly, it simply refers to the medium by which the Father and Son interact with humans and other parts of the physical world. At baptism, the human spirit (which distinguishes us from other animals by providing self awareness and free will (Job 32:8)) combines with some of God's holy spirit to create an embryonic spirit being that someday can be reborn as a full spirit being (John 3:7–8), a literal child of God. It is sensible to talk of the spirit of a man because man is more than just spirit (a man *has* a spirit) but the Scripture plainly states that God *is* spirit: > God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. - John 4:24 So when God says "I will pour out my spirit" in various places, Acts 2:17 for instance, or when He says things like: > Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts. - Zechariah 4:6 what exactly is being said if the Holy Spirit is not distinct from the Lord? According to Binitarians, is this just a roundabout and awkward way of God referring to Himself; as in "I will pour myself out on all flesh" or "Not by might, nor by power, but by myself"? If, most commonly, the Holy Spirit "simply refers to the medium by which the Father and Son interact with the physical world" why is this power sometimes referred to as Holy Spirit, other times as power (Ephesians 6:10), and why do both terms appear in Luke 1:35 making what appears to be a distinction between the two? > And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

In the Binitarian view, who or what is the Holy Spirit? Is it the spirit of the Father, or the Son, or both, or is it a separate entity?

I have heard that some non-trinitarian Christians reject the concept of the trinity and say that there is only one indivisible divinity. Are there any Christian denominations that believe in a "duality", i.e. that there are exactly *two* persons in the god-head?

Is there a Christian denomination that holds only the Son and the Father as persons of God? (Only two persons) -- as opposed to Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Has it been upheld by anyone in Christian history?

This is a term I coined myself (and do not advocate) but within Christian history most if not all of the ways someone could be a Trinitarian heretic found historical expression. I'm wondering if there are any who would acknowledge that there is one essence and two persons: the Father and the Son and that each of the persons have a spirit or the essence has a single spirit that is not a person. Again, for clarity, I believe this would be heresy, but I am surprised that I have never heard anyone advocate this position as it seems like a selective reading of the relevant passages could get you there just as well as any of the other Trinitarian heresies.

We hear a lot at times in church, seminary, general discussions, etc about the godhead, so that got me to wondering: what is the Scriptural basis for the Christian doctrine of Binitarianism? **UPDATE:** Binitarianism, as I currently understand it and am currently inferring about, is the belief that the Father and the Son are two persons in one God (similar to the theory of the trinity being 3 persons in one God) and the Holy Spirit is the operational power of God, but not a person.

Is it true that Jews during Jesus' lifetime were **binitarian**, that is believing that God was one being in two persons similar to how Christians have historically believed and taught that God is **trinitarian** having the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? From "Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan Segal". > Though it was difficult to date the rabbinic traditions accurately in many cases, the results showed that the earliest heretics believed in two complementary powers in heaven while only later could heretics be shown to believe in two opposing powers in heaven. The extra-rabbinic evidence allowed the conclusion that the traditions were earlier than the first century. Furthermore, in comparing the literature, it was possible to define a number of dangerous scriptural interpretations central to the heresy and show how the rabbis countered them by bringing in other scriptures which unambiguously stated God’s unity. From this evidence it became clear that the basic heresy involved interpreting scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God. ["Two Powers In Heaven Early Rab Segal"](https://archive.org/stream/TwoPowersInHeavenEarlyRabSegal/Two%20Powers%20in%20Heaven_%20Early%20Rab%20-%20Segal_djvu.txt) Hopefully this will remove the downvotes. **Edit** This might also help. > Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, - Genesis 19:24 I'm told the clear reading is that there are two YHWH's but I only know a little Greek and no Hebrew.