Walter Hinteler wrote:RexRed wrote:The English translation is quite sufficient to get the point.
Might be, I'm no Anglo-German liguist who could discuss this. (Although I truely believe that listening to an academic speech in German gives a different result than reading the English version ... which even isn't the actual speech translated but a script.)
But woiyo asked why he should read it all.
Because it is something he maybe believes in.
I saw nothing drastically wrong with the speech. It was true but it did border on some of the negative aspects of "much" of "today's" Islam rather than some of the more positive truths of Islam itself. It would make sense that he would try to change the violence in the world somehow. I don't want to put words in his mouth and please don't think I am trying to. I can speak for myself only.
I really do not know the man's theology that intricately but by reading that speech I learned volumes.
I utterly respect his opinion until it reaches the trinity then I must humbly disagree.
Concerning the trinity and the scripture I have no doubts about the trinity's deception.
The roman catholic church has been aware of this deception of the trinity for decades if not centuries but it's followers adhere to the trinity and to deny such a doctrine would seemingly cause the church itself to reform under another name or fall into utter chaos.
Even such a conservative source as the New Catholic Encyclopedia states that trinitarianism became part of Christian doctrine in the fourth, not the first, century.
Excerpt:
. . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any
document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three
centuries. Letters, art, usage, theology, worship, creed, hymn,
chant, doxology, ascription, commemorative rite, and festive
observance, so far as any remains or any record of them are
preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this
doctrine, an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify
at all, to the supremacy of the Father, the only true God; and
to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere
among these remains a co-equal Trinity. The cross is there;
Christ is there as the Good Shepherd, the Father's hand
placing a crown, or victor's wreath, on his head; but no undivided
Three, ?- co-equal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal.
This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was
of later origin.
It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a
clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation,
doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery
of the Trinity. . . .
There is. . . recognition on the part of historians of dogma and
systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified
Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of
Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It
was only then that what' might be called the definitive
Trinitarian dogma "one God in three Persons" became
thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.
. . . The dogmatic formula "one God in three Persons". . . was
the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, s.v. "Trinity, Holy."
