Israfil, the Son is not the SAME as the Father in terms of Persona.  They are of the same substance, power and glory. Could you explain why an omnipotent Being could not be Tri-Personal in nature?

Could you explain why an omnipotent Being is not capable of interpersonal relationship within Himself?  Why do you limit God to what you know of man?

Angela posted:

This is what I was partly discussing.  If you read The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos Ware), he goes more into depth of the concept of the Trinity in Eastern Orthodoxy and the concepts of Original Sin as opposed to the Western Roman Church from which all Protestent Churches form their basis of the Trinity.

The Roman/Protestant Churches view the trinity in a different manner than they Eastern Churches.  This above is just one example.

I knew Timothy Ware when he was a young man, and grew up with him in the same town.  Didn't know he was now a bishop, however.

 

  Really, you knew Bishop Ware???  That's cool.  I love his books, they are easy to understand, plain spoken and to the point.  Of all the books he wrote, I carried The Orthodox Church with me all over college and Russia. 

Meng wrote: Israfil, the Son is not the SAME as the Father in terms of Persona.  They are of the same substance, power and glory. Could you explain why an omnipotent Being could not be Tri-Personal in nature? Could you explain why an omnipotent Being is not capable of interpersonal relationship within Himself?  Why do you limit God to what you know of man?

Meng you have made an grave error, If the Son and Spirit are o different identies yet have the same power and glory then how is their relation to the Father? The Spirit and Son perhaps in this case essence's of the Father. If they are essence's of the father then they themselves are to have a different identity of the Father, I mean in regards to being. You admit that they have the same attributes of the father such as substance, power and glory. First off what you contradict is the word "substance" with the incoporeality of God. God as a being is incorporeal with no substance so surely if God's true nature is incoporeal then the other beings whom you say have the same substance as the father is totally false.

I am not saying that God being the author of the universe does not have complete control. God can do what he wants, however the logical position here is, in reality did God anthromorph into a human being just to save humanity, and if so is this logical? the question here is why not send a doctrine or some messenger to redeem mankind without physically do it himself and in doing so refers to himself as the Son of himself. This doesn't add up logically. It is possible for God to have a Son in an immaculate conception from a virgin woman and it is quite possible for God to do so without his involvement. As it is stated in the Holy doctrines of the Qur'an.

It is also possible for this being in such an immaculate conception be the redeemer of mankind and to the lost people without the need of this beeing to be God. All God has to do is command such a being to sacrifice himself for humanity. As Angela has mentioned in the Bible God was fulfilling a covenant but this covenant could be fulfilled without the need of God doing so himself. Many Christians have said that God needed someone to be pure someone not born of sin. Funny thing here is God can create a child not of sin by commanding the human body which is in this case with Mary's womb to form a child miraculously as he has done in the Qur'an and the Bible.

Again this doesn't add up. I cannot buy that the trinity philosophy is incomprehensible. the trinity concept is man made and ever so comprehensible. It is not logical. I'm still waiting for anyone to disprove my theory from earlier regarding the three sons and the father.