**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.

Some Protestants and Catholics believe that the "Angel of the LORD" mentioned in several Old Testament narratives is not merely a created angel but a manifestation of God—specifically understood by many as the pre-incarnate Christ. This is often described using the theological term theophany (meaning an appearance of God), though the term itself does not appear in Scripture. For instance: > It seems when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form….whether the angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (Christophany) or an appearance of God the Father (theophany), it is highly likely that the phrase “the angel of the Lord” usually identifies a physical appearance of God. (Protestant apologetics site GotQuestions.org ) A Catholic “Dictionary” describes the term “theophany” like this: > A direct communication or appearance by God to human beings. Instances: God confronting Adam and Eve after their disobedience (Genesis 3:8); God appearing to Moses out of a burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6); Abraham pleading with Yahweh to be merciful to Sodomites (Genesis 18:23). These theophanies were temporary manifestations. They were not like the Incarnation, which, though it began in time, will continue for all eternity. One such “theophany” in the form of “the angel of the Lord” is found in Zechariah: > Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. (Zechariah 3:1 - NKJV) Many Protestant and some Catholic scholars interpret this account as a theophany—an appearance of God in the Old Testament. In particular, some suggest that the figure identified as the Angel of the LORD may be a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the Trinity, later revealed in the New Testament as Jesus Christ. > This angel was Christ, or the Logos, mentioned Zechariah 1:11, and called the Lord in the following verse (Benson Commentary) > standing before the Angel of the Lord; not any created angel, but Christ the Angel of God's presence, who is called Jehovah, Zechariah 3:2 is the rebuker of Satan, and the advocate of his people; (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible) Interesting with this account is the following utterance by this “angel of the LORD” in Zechariah 3:2 > And the LORD [the Angel of the LORD speaking as the LORD] said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire (Zechariah 3:2 NKJV) Why does GOD in the form of the second person of the Trinity, manifesting Himself as the Angel of the LORD not rebuke Satan, but asks YHWH (the LORD) to do so? The Archangel Michael in Jude 9 uses a phrase closely resembling Zechariah 3:2—“The Lord rebuke you”—when disputing with the devil. While not a word-for-word quote (wording differs slightly across Hebrew and Greek), the parallel strongly echoes the rebuke found in the Old Testament passage: > Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you“ (Jude 9 NKJV) Could it be that the Angel of the LORD similarly “dared not bring against him (Satan) a reviling accusation” in Zechariah 3:2? If so, how could He be GOD? What other reason could there be NOT to rebuke Satan? One possible answer is found in 2 Peter 2:11 > whereas angels, who are greater in power and might [than humans], do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. This would suggest that the Angel of the Lord does have the same level of authority granted by GOD YHWH than many other Angels. It would mean that “the Angel of the LORD” is neither God nor the second person of the Trinity. How do those that hold to the position of “the Angel of the Lord” in Zechariah 3:1-2 being Christ pre-incarnate/God reconcile this? Why does the AOTL not rebuke Satan but asks YHWH/the LORD to do so?

A similar question has been asked here , but no details have been asked other than how Trinitarians interpret this verse. The top answer of the linked question talks about the Son being "eternally begotten" by the Father, and the Son *proceeding from the Father* (something I have not found in any of the Chalcedonian Creeds). My question is less about the Son's origin, but about the Father and the Son **sharing the same divine essence**. Thus, here is a more detailed question for this bible passage. Let me quote it first in its immediate context: > 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and > believeth on him that sent me, hath **everlasting life**, and shall not > come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. > > 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, > when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that > hear shall **live**. > > 26 *For* as **the Father hath life in himself**; so hath he ***given*** to the Son > to have life in himself; > > **John 5:24-26** (*KJV - emphasis mine*) **How is it that in light of John 5:26, the Father has "*everlasting life*" in Himself that has to be GIVEN (greek: edoken - other translations also say GRANTED) to the Son, so that the Son has that life in himself?** The type of life being talked about in John 5:26 is "everlasting life" (verse 24). So God the Father has this eternal life in Himself **inherently**, because he has no beginning and thus must have it inherently in Himself, otherwise He would not have been able to live for eternity past. Nobody gave the Father this life - he inherently has it in Himself! The Athanasian Creed says: > "The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And > yet they are not three eternals; but **one eternal**. So likewise the > Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty... > The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is > of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy > Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor > begotten; but proceeding... > And in this Trinity **none is before, or after another**; none is > greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are > **coeternal**, and **coequal**." It is hence clear that, according to the Chalcedonian Creeds, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence of being, the same nature. In order to be an eternal living being (past, present and future), as God Almighty is, you have to have life in yourself, **always**. If you have to be GIVEN or GRANTED that life, it means you didn't have it. Life itself (being alive) is an inherent part of the nature of a living being! According to Philipp Schaff who analyzed the works of St. Augustin , John 5:26 is explained as follows in the light of the Trinity: > For it is not, as with the creature so with the Son of God before the > incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten > by whom all things were made; that He is one thing, and has another: > but He is in such way as to be what He has. And this is said more > plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: > “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son > to have life in Himself.”[John 5:26] For He did not give to Him, > already existing and not having life, that He should have life in > Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is, He is life. Therefore “He gave to > the Son to have life in Himself” means, He begat the Son to be > unchangeable life, which is life eternal" Put in simpler terms: God the Father gave the Son life in Himself, which is life eternal. It means that the Son is eternal life, because what he has been given is what he became - it has become part of his essence! God the Father is the cause and the source of life. All Christian denominations I know of, that believe in the creation by God agree to this. **How can it be maintained that Jesus shares the same divine essence with the Father, but had to be GIVEN "everlasting life" that was never given to the Father, who apparently inherently had it in Himself, whereas it had to be GRANTED/GIVEN to Jesus (the Son)?** The act of the Father having granted and/or given (greek: ἔδωκεν ) Jesus eternal life in Himself, is an act that has temporal implications - *in the 68 occurrences of this form of the verb "edoken" in the Aorist Indicative Active , which expresses the simple occurrence of an action in past time, none appear atemporal/eternal* - which means that there was a point in time where Jesus did NOT have this type of life in Himself, which would mean that he does not share exactly the same essence with God. **How do Trinitarians explain this apparent contradiction?**

There is a [question about praying to Jesus](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62358/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-praying-to-jesus-as-opposed-to-praying-to-god-in) already, but I noticed there is no question about praying to the Holy Spirit. What is the biblical basis for praying to the third person of the trinity?

I was finishing up a read through of the Hebrew Bible when I came across this gem: Zechariah 14:6-9 (NASB) > On that day there will be no light; the luminaries will die out. 7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at the time of evening there will be light. 8 And on that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. > > 9 And the Lord will be King over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. This passage posses a logical contradiction for those that would assert that Jesus is LORD (YHWH). First, in v7 it says that this unique day is known to the LORD, to YHWH. Yet Christ himself makes it clear that he himself does not know when this day is, nor anyone else, but only the Father knows it. Matthew 24:36 (NASB) > “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Furthermore, in v9 it says that God alone will be King over all the earth; there won't be any other kings. Paul tells us that in the end, Christ himself will subjected to the Father - ie, there is an end to Christ's reign as king. 1 Corinthians 15:26-28 (NASB) > The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. This is consistent with what the prophets said concerning the throne of David. Psalm 89:29 (NASB) > So I will establish his descendants forever, And his throne as the days of heaven. Isaiah 65:17 (NASB) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. So then, since Christ neither knows the day which is known to the LORD, to YHWH, and since his reign will end when God creates the new heavens and the new earth, then logically Christ cannot be YHWH. Rather, the only one who can be identified as YHWH given these restrictions is the Father. -------- **QUESTION**: How do Trinitarians address these two major conflicts? How can Christ be said to be YHWH when he does not know the day nor the hour when YHWH does know it? And if Christ's reign on the throne of David ends with the new creation, reversing the sin of Israel when they demanded a human king, then how can Christ be YHWH who is King over all - and at the end, the only king ?

In trying to understand various trinitarians theologians like Karl Rahner/Karl Barth, the concept of "subsisting" often comes up. I'm really not sure what to make of it, initially I imagined it means (because of the "sub" prefix) what is the substance something is made of, or more likely a quality of an entity that exists within. But I'm really trying to wrap my head around what's the difference between saying: 1. There's one God who subsists in three persons 2. There are three persons who subsist in one God. Does the first affirm that there really is only one God, as in one person, who inside lives as three? And then the second to mean that there really are three distinct persons, but who inside live as one? Because my trinitarian theology is more western, I'd appreciate (and I've tagged this question) for Catholics and Protestants – as, again, that's what I'd wish for – but Eastern-Orthodox are also welcomed to respond as long as they keep my background in mind.

Revelation 1:4&5 >John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before the throne; vs5) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness.... Obviously there are three personas addressed in this introduction that provide grace and peace to the churches. How do Jehovah Witness explain the seven Spirits (Holy Spirit) as being a non-person if John addressed Him on an equal basis of respect in this introduction?

The following has been quoted from a Biblical Unitarian Source >Contrary to the assumption that Christ must be God for redemption to be accomplished, we find, upon a closer scrutiny, that the opposite must be the case—that unless he was a man, Jesus could not have redeemed mankind. God’s “infinite” (we prefer a less mathematical and more biblical term like “immortal”) nature actually precluded Him from being our redeemer, because God cannot die. He therefore sent a man equipped for the task, one who could die for our sins and then be raised from the dead to vanquish death forever. This is the clear testimony of Scripture. >Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one MAN [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! >If it were a major tenet of Christianity that redemption had to be accomplished by God Himself, then this section of Romans would have been the perfect place to say it. But just when Scripture could settle the argument once and for all, it says that redemption had to be accomplished by a man. The theological imaginings of “learned men” that only God could redeem mankind are rendered null and void by the clear voice of God Himself speaking through Scripture: a man had to do the job. Not just any man, but a sinless man, a man born of a virgin—THE MAN, Jesus, now The Man exalted to the position of “Lord” at God’s right hand. How would Trinitarians counter this argument ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >πολλω μαλλον η χαρις του θεου και η δωρεα εν χαριτι τη του ενος ανθρωπου ιησου χριστου εις τους πολλους επερισσευσεν [Romans 5:15 TR Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and Scrivener all identical] ------------------------------

Of course, we have many indications to that truth in the Old Testament, but it was only with the coming of Jesus Christ that it was spoken to humans in plain language that God has the Only-begotten Son. How is this matter explained in the Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestant Christianity?

I've come across several instances of the Trinitarian explanation that God's one nature (or essence) defines **what** God is, while the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—define **who** God is. For [example](https://relevantradio.com/2022/10/explaining-the-trinity-nature-and-person/) : > ... To wrap our heads around the Trinity, we have to distinguish the word “nature” from the word “person”. Our nature would be what suggests to us that there is a person, but the person is what possesses the nature. A person could not exist without his or her nature but ultimately, the person possesses their nature. > > Patrick applied this to Frank, his caller. Frank’s person tells us *who* he is. He is Frank and that is his person. Frank’s nature tells us *what* he is. He is a human being with a soul, intellect, and free will. Therefore, he has a human nature. When Jesus became incarnate, He had two natures, one human and one divine. He never ceased being God the Son. I’d like to understand more precisely how this distinction is made within Trinitarian theology. I’m particularly interested in how this is supported by both scripture and the historical teachings of the Church. For example, the **Fourth Lateran Council (1215)** declared: >"For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit: but the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal." This seems to affirm the distinction between person (who) and essence (what), but I’d like help unpacking it more fully. How do Trinitarian theologians interpret this distinction, and how does it help preserve both monotheism and the full divinity of each person? I’m looking for answers from a classical Trinitarian perspective, whether Western (Catholic/Protestant) or Eastern Orthodox, and would appreciate scriptural, conciliar, or patristic sources that explore this topic.

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 says: >"But God has revealed them to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." Paul compares the Spirit of God to a person's own spirit — which would imply essential unity, not distinction. In my case, my spirit is not another person; it's just me. If the Spirit of God is likewise indivisible from the Father, as Trinitarian theology also affirms, how can the Spirit still be considered a distinct person from the Father? How do Trinitarian theologians respond to this apparent tension between indivisibility and personal distinction in the Godhead, especially in light of this verse?

How do people who believe in the theology of The Holy Trinity respond to these clear differences between God and Jesus Christ? | # | The Father | Jesus Christ | |----| -------- | -------------- | |1.| God is not put to the test (Deut 6:16)| Jesus was put to the test in the wilderness| |2.| God is not mocked(Gal 6:7) | Jesus was mocked on the cross, *save us and yourself, he is calling Elijah*| |3|God has immortality and cannot die | Jesus died first and received the breath of life from God| |4|God has been seated on that throne for all eternity| Jesus is seated at the right hand of that throne and not on it, *One Sat On it*| |5|God knows the end from the beginning | Jesus does not know the time of his second coming, *not even the angels but the Father* | The differences above show that Jesus Christ received the breath of life from God like the two witnesses of The Book of Revelation and indeed he is the *Suffering Servant*. *Isaiah 53:4-6* >However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore, And our pains that He carried; Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted, Struck down by God, and humiliated. 5 But He was [c]pierced for our offenses, He was crushed for our wrongdoings; The punishment for our [d]well-being was laid upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. 6 All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all To [e]fall on Him. And surely a servant is not greater than his master who is God. As a Christian, I do believe in the words Jesus said that , *he did not know of the second coming, not even the angels but the Father*, if Jesus denied this knowledge then he is not *omniscient* and hence not God, If I deny those words, I make the Lord Jesus Christ a liar, which he is not and never will be. How do Trinitarian Christians respond?

There is much discussion in secular academia about the possibility/impossibility of Christ being Deity. But there are also sects *within religious circles* who dismiss the idea of Christ really being Deity! Some of those sects fly their flag under the banner of ***Christianity.*** Since the word "Christian" is commonly defined as "one who is a faithful disciple of Christ", then it follows that such a one should believe all that Jesus claimed, ***including His claim to Deity.*** (Also recognized as such by the Apostles.) >Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father...Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me... (John 14:9, 11) >My Father is always at work to this very day, and I too, am working.
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him...He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18) >He is the [visible] image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17) >For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form... (Colossians 2:9) >The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His Being, sustaining all things by His powerful Word. (Hebrews 1:3) >Jesus said to those who believed on Him, "***If you continue in My word***, then you are My disciples indeed." (John 8:31) Since Jesus's "word" included His claim to Deity, can a person ever be called a "Christian" who does not subscribe to believing Jesus is God? ***What is the consensus of Evangelical Protestants in this matter of importance?*** Can sects that deny the Deity of Christ still be considered under the umbrella of "Christianity"? or be considered a "Christian religion"?

I will try to ask this unique question again. How can we answer here without defining simple words used to define God? **Premise** From Wikipedia: >***Ontology*** addresses questions of how entities are grouped into categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. Ontologists often try to determine what the categories or highest kinds are and how they form a system of categories that encompasses classification of all entities. **person** pûr′sən noun >An individual of specified character. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self. **personhood** pûr′sən-hoo͝d″ noun >The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality. Grammerly.com >A **personal pronoun** is a short word we use as a simple substitute for the proper name of a **person**. The 1 God, YHWH, uses the **singular** masculine **personal pronoun** to describe **Himself**. So do the 3 **persons** of the trinity. The 1 true God, is described as having a ***personality***. Zephaniah 3:17 >YHWH your God in your midst, **The Mighty One**, will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing.” Isaiah 42:8 >"I am YHWH, ***that is My name***; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images." *Note here: YHWH doesn't share His unique glory. His uniquely supreme nature is only His.* John 17:3 (*Jesus speaking directly to God Almighty*) >And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the **only true God**, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. **QUESTION** -- ***According to the triune concept, there exist 3 eternal persons. How can 3 eternal persons with 3 distinct presences, be the 1 God of Israel?*** >“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, **YHWH is one**” (Deuteronomy 6:4). **God is one **what**? What is of one in the Trinity doctrine?** Please solve this equation: >***1person+1person+1person=1_____*** - a.) 1 person - b.) 1 being - c.) 1 essence - d.) 1 [other defined noun] Please define these words so that we can better understand. - If YHWH is **1 singular person**, how can 3 persons be 1 person and how many personalities? - If YHWH is **1 being**, how is a being different than a person? And how many personalities does this being have? - If YHWH is **1 non personified essence/nature**, please address how He addresses Himself with singular personal pronouns and His personality? __________________________________________________ Before flagging this question please read: **Stated rules for duplicates defined from this SE's META:** *"1.Having one 'perfect' form of a question that contains every possible answer to every slight variation of that question is a myth at best and actively harmful at worst.* *"2.Having dozens and dozens of variations of the same question is clearly bad.* *"3.What we want is on the order of 4 or 5 similar-but-not-quite-the-same duplicates to cover all possible search terms and common permutations of the question. It is also OK for these duplicates to have their own answers so people who find them don’t have to click yet again to get to a good answer."*

Trinitarian Christians say that *God has **always** existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spiri*. And that the father created everything through the son. **Did Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Job, Noah, Moses, Jacob, Ishmael, David, worship God as a triune "person/God?**" When they prayed, did they understand that they were praying to a triune God? Which one of the three answered their prayers? If they did not kmow that the God they worshipped was a triune God, **why would the greatest of believing men not know the son and or the holy spirit....and not be required to worship the son and or the holy spirit (both of whom existed in that time AS GOD)...and yet for the rest of us, if we don’t worship or acknowledge the son or holy spirit, we go to hell?** This question is for Trinitarians. Secondly, **my inquiry is not focusing on Jesus (the man/Messiah), but on the preexisting son and holy spirit as they existed during the Old Testament period (in their divine essence/nature as part of the triune God)**

Within Christian theology, particularly in the doctrine of the Trinity, are the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—understood to possess distinct and independent faculties of freewill, or are their volitional acts considered to be unified, expressing a single divine will? Or is perhaps one a reflection of the other? Additionally, do various Christian denominations or theological traditions differ in how they address this question?

Following are some excerpts from the Nicene Creed: > I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father... > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. > >(*Source*: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) Here, the Creed speaks of God the Son as consubstantial with the Father. But when it comes to describing the Holy Spirit, it does not use the attribute 'consubstantial'. What is the explanation for the same? Inputs are welcome from any denomination that has adopted the Nicene Creed.

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.

A recent [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91738/do-protestant-trinitarians-see-a-completeness-of-the-canon-of-new-testament-scri?noredirect=1) says: > The number three in the bible is significant. … Three persons are associated with the burning bush which Moses saw (Jehovah, Elohim and the Angel of the Lord). [Exodus 3:1–6 (NKJV)](https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/exo/3/1-6/s_53001) describes this incident: > Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of *God[Elohim]*. > And **the Angel** of the *LORD[YHWH]* appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. > Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.” > > So when **the LORD[YHWH]** saw that he turned aside to look, **God[Elohim]** called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” > > Then *He[3MS]* said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” > Moreover *He[3MS]* said, “I am the *God[Elohim]* of your father—the *God[Elohim]* of Abraham, the *God[Elohim]* of Isaac, and the *God[Elohim]* of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon **God[Elohim]**. This contains 5 instances of “*Elohim*” and 1 of “*YHWH*”, which are indirect references. and 2 instances of “*3MS*”, which are a third person masculine singular pronoun. But, there are three different names directly associated with the being(s) in the flame: - 1 **the Angel** - 1 **YHWH** - 2 **Elohim** At one extreme: - “**Elohim**” could be considered simply as a synonym for “**YHWH**” or “**the Angel**”. - The one explicit reference to "**YHWH**" doesn't require his literal presence within the bush. - I.e. the only being in the burning bush was **the Angel**. At the other extreme, there are actually three distinct beings within the burning bush. Do any denominations teach that Moses was talking with three distinct beings?