How do later Gentile views of "the Word" in John 1 differ from the original Jewish-Christian understanding, and what are the theological implications?

[My Rock]

Do you believe that the Word "in the beginning" was a Person? Or do you view the Word, pre-incarnate, as just the inanimate, impersonal "Words" that the Father speaks?

To define The Word (Greek: Logos) in John 1:1, a look at Greek lexicons and encyclopedias reveals rich nuances. Logos carries meanings such as "speech," "reason," "message," or "expression." In Greek thought, Logos often referred to the rational principle ordering the universe. In a Hebrew context, the word reflects God’s creative and communicative action, as in Genesis 1 where God "speaks" creation into existence.

In John 1:1, Logos embodies God’s eternal wisdom, plan, and self-expression. John presents The Word as not merely a spoken utterance but the full divine essence—God’s very nature and purpose—becoming manifest in Jesus Christ. This aligns with Hebrew understanding where God's Word is not an abstract force but a tangible action of His presence and will, ultimately personified in Christ, who is the "Word made flesh."

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

To define The Word (Greek: Logos) in John 1:1, a look at Greek lexicons and encyclopedias reveals rich nuances. Logos carries meanings such as "speech," "reason," "message," or "expression." In Greek thought, Logos often referred to the rational principle ordering the universe. In a Hebrew context, the word reflects God’s creative and communicative action, as in Genesis 1 where God "speaks" creation into existence.

In John 1:1, Logos embodies God’s eternal wisdom, plan, and self-expression. John presents The Word as not merely a spoken utterance but the full divine essence—God’s very nature and purpose—becoming manifest in Jesus Christ. This aligns with Hebrew understanding where God's Word is not an abstract force but a tangible action of His presence and will, ultimately personified in Christ, who is the "Word made flesh."

I understand how you view the Word. I am asking Hopeful how he/she views the Word. Hopeful's discourse on the matter is not clear.
My point to you in this thread (which you have not responded to) is that by using the term Logos concerning Christ to his Greek audience, his Greek audience would have immediately understood that John was identifying Christ as being God, but also a DISTINCT PERSON from the MONAD. Iow, the Logos is of the same nature/substance as the Monad but is distinct from the Monad.
This is especially reinforced by verse 18 of John 1, wherein the Son is "in thr Bosom of the Father" and "Declares the Father".

 

[My Rock]

I understand how you view the Word. I am asking Hopeful how he/she views the Word. Hopeful's discourse on the matter is not clear.
My point to you in this thread (which you have not responded to) is that by using the term Logos concerning Christ to his Greek audience, his Greek audience would have immediately understood that John was identifying Christ as being God, but also a DISTINCT PERSON from the MONAD. Iow, the Logos is of the same nature/substance as the Monad but is distinct from the Monad.
This is especially reinforced by verse 18 of John 1, wherein the Son is "in thr Bosom of the Father" and "Declares the Father".

The interpretation presented—asserting that John’s Greek audience would understand Logos as implying Christ is a distinct person from the Monad—doesn’t fully align with the original first-century Jewish and early Christian understanding. John wrote primarily within a Jewish theological context, which profoundly influenced his concept of Logos.

For Jewish believers, Logos (Greek for Word) paralleled the Hebrew concept of Dabar (Word) and Memra (Aramaic for “Word” in Targums). In Jewish thought, Word was seen as God’s active self-expression and creative power, as in Genesis 1: “God said…” The Logos, therefore, wasn’t a distinct person within the Godhead, but rather an aspect or manifestation of God’s own nature.

John 1:1 emphasizes this Jewish monotheistic framework, stating, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This affirms unity rather than distinction in essence. By declaring “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), John shows that God Himself took on flesh, rather than introducing a separate divine person. This means that the Logos was God’s plan and purpose made visible in Jesus, not an eternal Son or second person in a Trinity.

John 1:18’s phrase “in the bosom of the Father” does not necessitate personhood separation but rather symbolizes intimate relationship and divine revelation, illustrating that Jesus fully reveals the invisible God. Rather than implying ontological distinctiveness, this reflects John’s belief in Jesus as God’s self-revelation to humanity.

Thus, John’s audience would not necessarily view Logos as a distinct person from the Monad, but rather as God Himself becoming known through Christ, consistent with Jewish monotheism and with John’s intent to affirm Jesus as the visible image of the invisible God.

Here are sources outside of the canon of Scripture:

Historical evidence from early Jewish and Greco-Roman sources supports the understanding of Logos as God’s self-expression rather than a distinct divine person. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE–50 CE), a Jewish philosopher, discussed Logos as God’s reason or wisdom—His active agent in creation but not a separate entity. Philo’s works reveal that Logos functioned as an intermediary between God and the world, akin to God’s voice or mind but not as a distinct person, reflecting Jewish monotheistic views.

Similarly, early Christian writings maintain that Logos in John 1 refers to God's own essence manifested in flesh, not an eternal second person. The Shepherd of Hermas (2nd century) and the writings of early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr align with this interpretation, portraying the Logos as God’s immanent presence rather than a separate being. For instance, Justin Martyr viewed the Logos as God’s spoken word through which He interacts with the world, only manifested in human form as Jesus.

This framework aligns with John’s theological goal: to affirm that the one God of Israel has fully revealed Himself in Jesus, without introducing a distinction of persons within the Godhead. This understanding contrasts with later Greek-influenced developments in Trinitarian doctrine but is consistent with Jewish monotheism and John’s intent in writing the Gospel.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

The interpretation presented—asserting that John’s Greek audience would understand Logos as implying Christ is a distinct person from the Monad—doesn’t fully align with the original first-century Jewish and early Christian understanding. John wrote primarily within a Jewish theological context, which profoundly influenced his concept of Logos.

For Jewish believers, Logos (Greek for Word) paralleled the Hebrew concept of Dabar (Word) and Memra (Aramaic for “Word” in Targums). In Jewish thought, Word was seen as God’s active self-expression and creative power, as in Genesis 1: “God said…” The Logos, therefore, wasn’t a distinct person within the Godhead, but rather an aspect or manifestation of God’s own nature.

John 1:1 emphasizes this Jewish monotheistic framework, stating, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This affirms unity rather than distinction in essence. By declaring “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), John shows that God Himself took on flesh, rather than introducing a separate divine person. This means that the Logos was God’s plan and purpose made visible in Jesus, not an eternal Son or second person in a Trinity.

John 1:18’s phrase “in the bosom of the Father” does not necessitate personhood separation but rather symbolizes intimate relationship and divine revelation, illustrating that Jesus fully reveals the invisible God. Rather than implying ontological distinctiveness, this reflects John’s belief in Jesus as God’s self-revelation to humanity.

Thus, John’s audience would not necessarily view Logos as a distinct person from the Monad, but rather as God Himself becoming known through Christ, consistent with Jewish monotheism and with John’s intent to affirm Jesus as the visible image of the invisible God.

Here are sources outside of the canon of Scripture:

Historical evidence from early Jewish and Greco-Roman sources supports the understanding of Logos as God’s self-expression rather than a distinct divine person. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE–50 CE), a Jewish philosopher, discussed Logos as God’s reason or wisdom—His active agent in creation but not a separate entity. Philo’s works reveal that Logos functioned as an intermediary between God and the world, akin to God’s voice or mind but not as a distinct person, reflecting Jewish monotheistic views.

Similarly, early Christian writings maintain that Logos in John 1 refers to God's own essence manifested in flesh, not an eternal second person. The Shepherd of Hermas (2nd century) and the writings of early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr align with this interpretation, portraying the Logos as God’s immanent presence rather than a separate being. For instance, Justin Martyr viewed the Logos as God’s spoken word through which He interacts with the world, only manifested in human form as Jesus.

This framework aligns with John’s theological goal: to affirm that the one God of Israel has fully revealed Himself in Jesus, without introducing a distinction of persons within the Godhead. This understanding contrasts with later Greek-influenced developments in Trinitarian doctrine but is consistent with Jewish monotheism and John’s intent in writing the Gospel.

You said:
The interpretation presented—asserting that John’s Greek audience would understand Logos as implying Christ is a distinct person from the Monad—doesn’t fully align with the original first-century Jewish and early Christian understanding. John wrote primarily within a Jewish theological context, which profoundly influenced his concept of Logos.

My response:
I am not giving an interpretation. I am giving the actual historical understanding of the Greek Philosophical concept of the Logos and the Monad. John's audience was NOT JEWISH. He was writing to a GREEK GENTILE CHURCH and he was doing so in order to dispel heresies in the Church that were being brought in BY the Greeks themselves.
In Greek Philosophy, the Logos emanated from the ineffable and eternal Monad, and therefore was DISTINCT FROM the Monad but still united to the Monad as one in substance/nature. You keep using the word "separate" in regards to Person, but that is not the Doctrine. The Son's Personhood is not "separate" from the Father, but rather "distinct" and the Church further clarified this articulation by saying that the Person's of the Father and the Son were INSEPARABLE and UNDIVIDED. Notice that these words are negatives. They say what the relationship between the Person of the Son and the Person of the Father is NOT, rather than what that relationship IS. That is because the relationship between the Father and Son is a MYSTERY not fully comprehendable to human beings.
Now, as to your assertions concerning Philo and the Church Fathers, you are in error.
First, Philo was NOT a Church Father, nor a Christian at all and is not a Church authority.
As for St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr:
Ignatius actually addresses a proto-"Oneness" doctrine in his Epistle to the Trallians saying:

"They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter VI

And Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho very clearly defines the Trinity Doctrine:
Now, first, you can find the entire Dialogue below at the link provided. The link gives sub-links to sections of the Dialogue because it is rather lengthy. The relevant passages concerning the Divinity of Christ are in the subsections 55-68 and I have quoted the passages below. As is clearly seen, Justin's Christology is NOT Oneness but is consistent with the Trinity Doctrine. I have only quoted sections 61 because it really is the relevant passage, and I had to keep my post below 1000 characters, but the entire subsections of 55-68 need to be read in order to truly get the impact of what Justin is saying.

CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho (Justin Martyr)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

​

Chapter 61. Wisdom is begotten of the Father, as fire from fire​

Justin: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following:

If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begets me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. Now, therefore, O son, hear me. Blessed is the man who shall listen to me, and the mortal who shall keep my ways, watching daily at my doors, observing the posts of my ingoings. For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and [my] will has been prepared by the Lord. But they who sin against me, trespass against their own souls; and they who hate me love death.

​

 

[My Rock]

I am giving the actual historical understanding of the Greek Philosophical concept of the Logos and the Monad. John's audience was NOT JEWISH.

So am I. For the real reason John wrote what he wrote.

He was writing to a GREEK GENTILE CHURCH and he was doing so in order to dispel heresies in the Church that were being brought in BY the Greeks themselves.

Yes, John’s writing likely served to refute emerging doctrines and misunderstandings about Christ's nature during his time. By the late first century, a few theological issues had arisen, including Gnosticism, which promoted the idea that the material world was inherently evil and that Jesus could not have been truly human. Gnostics viewed Jesus either as a purely spiritual being or as an “emanation” separate from the true God the Father, downplaying God the Father's physical incarnation.

In his prologue, John emphasized that the Word “became flesh” (John 1:14), underscoring the true humanity and divinity of Jesus as one God, which directly countered Gnostic beliefs. John’s statement that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” also counters ideas that would later contribute to Arianism, a view suggesting Jesus was a created being distinct from God the Father.

John's Gospel was structured to clarify the nature of Christ as both fully God the Father and fully human, refuting views that sought to divide or deny either aspect of His being. This emphasis on Jesus as the divine Logos incarnate, one with the Father, ensured that early believers understood Him as the complete revelation of God the Father, addressing misconceptions that had begun to influence early Christian thinking.

You keep using the word "separate" in regards to Person, but that is not the Doctrine. The Son's Personhood is not "separate" from the Father, but rather "distinct"

If a Trinitarian says "The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father" no matter how you try and spin the theology its separation. Especially when Scriptures say this specifically about the Son: Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Mind you this is OT before Christ was born He would be The everlast Father.

 

[JLB]

Perfectly discerned to this point.

This part should have stayed without your editing.
God saw that Moses "turned aside to look", and God took over from there.

Again, no changes were necessary by you.
The angel was first to appear in the fire, but when God saw Moses' interest, God took over.

You are very welcome.

The Angel of the LORD is God.

Not God the Father but God the Son.


Words of Christ in red.


Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:6


Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him;…
John 8:58-59

 

[Hopeful 2]

So, God WAS "in the fire"?

Ex 3:4 says..."God called unto him out of the midst of the bush", which was apparently still burning.

Just not until Moses looked?

Yes, as Ex 3:4 says..."And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see,...".

Is that what you mean by "God took over", or do you mean something else?

That is exactly what I mean.

You are not being clear. In saying "God took over" you could be saying that it was still an angel that was in the fire but that God was then somehow animating the angel like a pupett or something. Is that the case, ?

No.

or do you mean that God actually TOOK THE PLACE of the angel? That at first the angel was there, then left, and God actually took the angel's place? Is that what you mean?

Yes, that is what Ex 3:4 infers.
There was no further mention of an angel, after God started to speak.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Do you believe that the Word "in the beginning" was a Person? Or do you view the Word, pre-incarnate, as just the inanimate, impersonal "Words" that the Father speaks?

I believe the Word was, for lack of better words, a person who was with God.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The Angel of the LORD is God.

Not God the Father but God the Son.


Words of Christ in red.


Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:6


Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him;…
John 8:58-59

It is apparent that your 'red lettered' words are of both God and of His Son Jesus Christ.
My red letter KJV bible has only Jesus' words in red, and Exodus 3 is not in red.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

So am I. For the real reason John wrote what he wrote.

I don't see how, being that you are completely ignoring the cultural significance of the terms John is using in the chapter. I have provided that cultural significance and you have utterly ignored that.

Yes, John’s writing likely served to refute emerging doctrines and misunderstandings about Christ's nature during his time. By the late first century, a few theological issues had arisen, including Gnosticism, which promoted the idea that the material world was inherently evil and that Jesus could not have been truly human. Gnostics viewed Jesus either as a purely spiritual being or as an “emanation” separate from the true God the Father, downplaying God the Father's physical incarnation.

In his prologue, John emphasized that the Word “became flesh” (John 1:14), underscoring the true humanity and divinity of Jesus as one God, which directly countered Gnostic beliefs. John’s statement that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” also counters ideas that would later contribute to Arianism, a view suggesting Jesus was a created being distinct from God the Father.

John's Gospel was structured to clarify the nature of Christ as both fully God the Father and fully human, refuting views that sought to divide or deny either aspect of His being. This emphasis on Jesus as the divine Logos incarnate, one with the Father, ensured that early believers understood Him as the complete revelation of God the Father, addressing misconceptions that had begun to influence early Christian thinking.

If a Trinitarian says "The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father" no matter how you try and spin the theology its separation. Especially when Scriptures say this specifically about the Son: Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Mind you this is OT before Christ was born He would be The everlast Father.

As shown in St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue, throughout the OT, the Messiah is called "Yahweh" over and over, such as in Isaiah 9:6. Yet, also, Yahweh on earth is distinguished from Yahweh in heaven; such as with Sodom and Gomorrah and with the Wisdom Psalm in which the Word is most definitely shown to be "begotten before all ages" as the Church Fathers said.
You and the Arians are two sides of the same coin. The Arians ignore verses of Scripture which emphasise the Unity of the Godhead, and you Oneness folks ignore the verses which emphasize the distinction between the Persons of the Godhead.
And, no, no matter how many times you say it, the Apostolic Trinity Doctrine does not separate the Father from the Son. They are of ONE ESSENCE and are inseparable and undivided; yet they are clearly two Persons.
Even within John 1:1 which you keep citing yourself.
The Word is BOTH with God and is God all at once. John shows both the unity and the distinction of the Father and Son undeniably and beautifully in just one masterful sentence and it confounds both Oneness and Arian Doctrine.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

I believe the Word was, for lack of better words, a person who was with God.

Thanks for the clarification. With that in mind, I cannot understand why you have an issue with the Word being the Angel of the Lord.
All of the various physical appearances of Yahweh in the OT are the Pre-Incarnate Word. This is the Apostolic Doctrine handed down since the beginning of the Church.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Thanks for the clarification. With that in mind, I cannot understand why you have an issue with the Word being the Angel of the Lord.
All of the various physical appearances of Yahweh in the OT are the Pre-Incarnate Word. This is the Apostolic Doctrine handed down since the beginning of the Church.

It doesn't seem credible that "God" would appear in the bush and then God would instruct Moses after it is written that "And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush,"
Why mention an angel at all ?
Or why not just say the angel replied to Moses from out of the bush ?

And I guess that is the reason you keep capitalizing the "a" in angel.
You have assigned divinity to a servant of God.
God created angels.
God did not create the Word.

 

[Free]

That is not what is written.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John1:14)

And, the Word is the Son.

If the "Son" has always existed, there must be a record of it somewhere.

There is: John 1:1-3,10; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:2, 10-12.

You are putting forth conflicting positions.
First, that the Son always existed, and then, that the Son had a beginning.

I've already stated that I have not once ever said that the Son had a beginning. Why do I have to repeat myself? That is you reading your position into mine.

I guess that proves that human nature isn't necessarily evil.

There is no way to come to that conclusion from what I stated.

What other testimony counters John's ?

None. They're all consistent.

The Word became the Son, at His birth from Mary.
The Word had to take on flesh in order to be born of a woman.

The Word, who was the Son, became the Son (the Word) in human flesh, being born of Mary.

Context would determine whether or not one refers to the Word pre, or post birth, from Mary.
Post-birth He is always referred to as Jesus.
With the exception of Rev 19:13..."And He, ( He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True), was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God."

And, yet, once again, John is the only one who uses ho Logos. As I stated, John clearly had a specific reason to call the eternal Son the Word.

Of course.
The Word became the Son at birth.

He was always the Son and the Father always the Father.

Jesus, before taking on skin and bones, was the Word; who was with God and was God from the beginning .
Where does Jesus say He has an eternal, divine nature ?

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
...
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
...
Joh 6:46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.
...
Joh 6:48 I am the bread of life.
...
Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
...
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
...
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
…
Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Those things, and more, would be why the writers of the NT thought so as well.

John did that for Him, no doubt at the behest of the Holy Ghost.

John did what, exactly? Corrected what Jesus said about himself, so that people would no longer be mislead?

 

[My Rock]

They are of ONE ESSENCE and are inseparable and undivided; yet they are clearly two Persons.

The idea of God being both “One” and “multiple persons” presents a contradiction. Either God is truly One, indivisible in essence, or He consists of distinct persons. If God is divided internally into persons, that division contradicts the concept of true oneness, as even internal distinctions imply separateness. Unity in essence cannot allow for internal division without compromising the integrity of being one and undivided. Therefore, asserting both oneness and multiplicity within God leads to a logical inconsistency.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

It doesn't seem credible that "God" would appear in the bush and then God would instruct Moses after it is written that "And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush,"
Why mention an angel at all ?
Or why not just say the angel replied to Moses from out of the bush ?

And I guess that is the reason you keep capitalizing the "a" in angel.
You have assigned divinity to a servant of God.
God created angels.
God did not create the Word.

There is a difference between "an angel" and the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is the Lord's Personal physical manifestation.
If you would read outside of the Canon of Scripture, you would see that, among the pre-Christian Hebrew Rabbis and Scribes and so forth, in their Talmuds and Midrash, they slowly developed the notion of the Metatron; which is the Deity Manifest VISIBLY from out of eternity and into Creation. These scholars took this from the Scriptures continually alluding to visible manifestations of Yahweh, including the manifestation of the Angel of the Lord.
The Church is the continuation of Judaism. It is often forgotten by Protestants, especially in America, that the Church was originally completely Jewish. When I first began attending an Orthodox Parish, this really hit home for me, because the Church contains in Her Life, guided by the Holy Spirit, 2000 year old Sacred Traditions which make it very evident just how Jewish the original Church was. Just as an example, Matins. Matins is a service which precedes Holy Liturgy and it directly comes down to us from the Apostles and other Disciples from the time in which, just after the Resurrection and Ascension of the Lord, they met daily in the Temple and worshipped. It consists of Liturgical chant, mainly of the Psalms. Very beautiful.
But, the point is that the Church inherited Judaistic practice, and part of that practice is the Oral Traditions which interpret Holy Scripture.
The ancient Hebrews not only had the Written Law; they had the Oral Law which accompanied the Written Law and EXPLAINED the Written Law. This was written down, over time, in the Midrash and the various Talmuds, in pre-Christian times.
You might be surprised, if you do an in-depth study of the History of the Church, that the Church sprang up fully Liturgical. That was an inheritance from Judaism. This is why Matthew Mark and Luke are "Synoptic". Their almost verbatim similarities exist because they were taken from the earliest Liturgies of the various local Churches all across the Empire. Liturgical chant was used in order to PRESERVE THE WORD OF GOD. It is easier to memorize a song, than it is to memorize a written text. In fact, according to Sacred Oral Tradition, because the Church was formally liturgical, the Holy Spirit gave to the Church prayers in tongues so that the Church would be more spiritually minded than rigid in worship. Once this had served its purpose, the Holy Spirit again moved on the Church and gave to her, by Prophecy, the "Jesus Prayer"; which was, and still is, simply "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner". This all happened within the First Century. The heretics used the movements of the Holy Spirit, and formed a heresy by the name of Montanism in the Second Century in which they asserted that the Holy Spirit Gift of Prophecy (through tongues and just normal language) was of authoritative priority, even if it contradicted the Gospel as given by the Apostles. Tertullian later succumbed to this heresy, which is why he is not counted as a Saint or Church Father.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

The idea of God being both “One” and “multiple persons” presents a contradiction.

For HUMAN BEINGS it is a contradiction. We are not talking about a human being, though. We are talking about the eternal, infinite God. Don't you realize that God, in His Essence, is an INFINITE DISTANCE from you? Just think about that, for a moment.

Either God is truly One, indivisible in essence, or He consists of distinct persons.

His Essence is NOT DIVIDED, in the Apostolic Doctrine. God is Three Persons of One Essence, Undivided and Inseparable.

If God is divided internally into persons, that division contradicts the concept of true oneness, as even internal distinctions imply separateness.

UN-divided....IN-separable.

Unity in essence cannot allow for internal division without compromising the integrity of being one and undivided. Therefore, asserting both oneness and multiplicity within God leads to a logical inconsistency.

See above.
I point you to the post I made to you about the eternal nature of God. Remember the post about God hitting a ball?
Now apply that to God SPEAKING. And then, think about the fact that His Word is an EXACT EXPRESSION of His Essence. His Essence is PERSONAL, meaning that God, in His Essence is a PERSON. Thus, "when" the Father Spoke, He Spoke forth ANOTHER PERSON WHO WAS HIMSELF. Impossible for us to fully comprehend.

 

[JLB]

It is apparent that your 'red lettered' words are of both God and of His Son Jesus Christ.
My red letter KJV bible has only Jesus' words in red, and Exodus 3 is not in red.

And the Angel of the LORD 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…
Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.


The Angel of the LORD appeared to Moses.

The Angel of the LORD spoke with Moses.

The Angel of the LORD stated He was the God of Abraham.

Moses was looking at the Angel of the LORD in the burning bush. Moses stated He was afraid to look upon God.


There were only two individuals in these passages:

Moses and the Angel of the LORD.




JLB

 

[Hopeful 2]

And, the Word is the Son.

The Word became the Son of God at His birth from the union of God's Spirit and Mary.

I've already stated that I have not once ever said that the Son had a beginning.

He did have a beginning, at His birth from Mary.

There is no way to come to that conclusion from what I stated.

If Jesus had a human nature, (He did),that nature was not evil.

 

[Hopeful 2]

There is a difference between "an angel" and the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is the Lord's Personal physical manifestation.
If you would read outside of the Canon of Scripture, you would see that, among the pre-Christian Hebrew Rabbis and Scribes and so forth, in their Talmuds and Midrash, they slowly developed the notion of the Metatron; which is the Deity Manifest VISIBLY from out of eternity and into Creation. These scholars took this from the Scriptures continually alluding to visible manifestations of Yahweh, including the manifestation of the Angel of the Lord.
The Church is the continuation of Judaism. It is often forgotten by Protestants, especially in America, that the Church was originally completely Jewish. When I first began attending an Orthodox Parish, this really hit home for me, because the Church contains in Her Life, guided by the Holy Spirit, 2000 year old Sacred Traditions which make it very evident just how Jewish the original Church was. Just as an example, Matins. Matins is a service which precedes Holy Liturgy and it directly comes down to us from the Apostles and other Disciples from the time in which, just after the Resurrection and Ascension of the Lord, they met daily in the Temple and worshipped. It consists of Liturgical chant, mainly of the Psalms. Very beautiful.
But, the point is that the Church inherited Judaistic practice, and part of that practice is the Oral Traditions which interpret Holy Scripture.
The ancient Hebrews not only had the Written Law; they had the Oral Law which accompanied the Written Law and EXPLAINED the Written Law. This was written down, over time, in the Midrash and the various Talmuds, in pre-Christian times.
You might be surprised, if you do an in-depth study of the History of the Church, that the Church sprang up fully Liturgical. That was an inheritance from Judaism. This is why Matthew Mark and Luke are "Synoptic". Their almost verbatim similarities exist because they were taken from the earliest Liturgies of the various local Churches all across the Empire. Liturgical chant was used in order to PRESERVE THE WORD OF GOD. It is easier to memorize a song, than it is to memorize a written text. In fact, according to Sacred Oral Tradition, because the Church was formally liturgical, the Holy Spirit gave to the Church prayers in tongues so that the Church would be more spiritually minded than rigid in worship. Once this had served its purpose, the Holy Spirit again moved on the Church and gave to her, by Prophecy, the "Jesus Prayer"; which was, and still is, simply "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner". This all happened within the First Century. The heretics used the movements of the Holy Spirit, and formed a heresy by the name of Montanism in the Second Century in which they asserted that the Holy Spirit Gift of Prophecy (through tongues and just normal language) was of authoritative priority, even if it contradicted the Gospel as given by the Apostles. Tertullian later succumbed to this heresy, which is why he is not counted as a Saint or Church Father.

I cannot agree with that.

 

[Hopeful 2]

And the Angel of the LORD 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…
Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

I cannot elevate an angel to Godhood.

The Angel of the LORD appeared to Moses.

The Angel of the LORD spoke with Moses.

The Angel of the LORD stated He was the God of Abraham.

Moses was looking at the Angel of the LORD in the burning bush. Moses stated He was afraid to look upon God.


There were only two individuals in these passages:

Moses and the Angel of the LORD.

There were three characters in play.
Moses, the angel, and God.