pacifism for true Jesus' followers.

Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
marhig said:
Well I never knew that! I've never heard a non Trinitarian say that they don't believe that Jesus is raised from the dead.

We can't be raised with Christ if Christ Jesus is not raised. And we can't have faith in a dead Jesus only a living Jesus raised by God.

Is there a thread on that, that you know of that I can read? Thanks
Click to expand...
Not that I know of. And the phenomenon may just be with online-active non-Trins, maybe IRL JWs aren't like that at all---although, I have to say that the JW website explains the Resurrection---while not technically distinctly from the Catholic teaching, except that they rather extremely mention that the Lord rose in a quote-unquote spiritual body, which He did . . . but the JW-dot-org website was so careful to point out that His risen body was different from the body He died as, that it almost seems to be giving space to those who don't want to believe that He rose nonfictionally.

If you can believe it, [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] actually balked at my usage of the words nonfiction and fiction, saying they were somehow ambiguous terms, even when used explicitly mutually exclusively. :)
 
marhig

marhig

Well-known member
Nihilo said:
Not that I know of. And the phenomenon may just be with online-active non-Trins, maybe IRL JWs aren't like that at all---although, I have to say that the JW website explains the Resurrection---while not technically distinctly from the Catholic teaching, except that they rather extremely mention that the Lord rose in a quote-unquote spiritual body, which He did . . . but the JW-dot-org website was so careful to point out that His risen body was different from the body He died as, that it almost seems to be giving space to those who don't want to believe that He rose nonfictionally.

If you can believe it, [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] actually balked at my usage of the words nonfiction and fiction, saying they were somehow ambiguous terms, even when used explicitly mutually exclusively. :)
Click to expand...
Do you believe that he is risen in us?
 
marhig

marhig

Well-known member
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
marhig said:
Non fictionally? He is risen full stop!

But he has to be risen in us, Don't you believe that?

Christ has to be in us, or we are dead to him!
Click to expand...
This is your cultism creeping in. The "crowning [and] central truth" is the Resurrection. What we should or ought think about the Resurrection, is Christian theology. I subscribe to the popes in matters of Christian theology; I'm a non-combatant.
 
marhig

marhig

Well-known member
Nihilo said:
This is your cultism creeping in. The "crowning [and] central truth" is the Resurrection. What we should or ought think about the Resurrection, is Christian theology. I subscribe to the popes in matters of Christian theology; I'm a non-combatant.
Click to expand...
So you don't believe that Christ is risen in you?
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Lazy afternoon said:
It can not be that the Pope is the head of the NT church.

LA
Click to expand...
Then you have to pay attention more to what I'm saying. It's not Francis---it's Peter, who I believe in. And the last time, that Peter, spoke, was in 1994 or 1995. I think the first version was published in 1994, and at that time---there has to be a controlling version in the Church, because she speaks so many languages, just like how the Apostles spoke so many languages on Pentecost in AD 33---the controlling version was French I think, but maybe that's John Calvin's language I'm thinking of, maybe John Calvin wrote his Institutes in French . . . but anyway, the first English version was published with a different "controlling" language version, in 1994, and in 1995, the "controlling version" was Latin, which is always the best "controlling" version, because Latin doesn't change, like French or English or Chinese change. If ever there's a question of interpretation with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Latin version is the "highest court of appeal." Latin is the Church's "original" language.

Cf. John 19:20 (KJV)
 
marhig

marhig

Well-known member
Nihilo said:
Then you have to pay attention more to what I'm saying. It's not Francis---it's Peter, who I believe in. And the last time, that Peter, spoke, was in 1994 or 1995. I think the first version was published in 1994, and at that time---there has to be a controlling version in the Church, because she speaks so many languages, just like how the Apostles spoke so many languages on Pentecost in AD 33---the controlling version was French I think, but maybe that's John Calvin's language I'm thinking of, maybe John Calvin wrote his Institutes in French . . . but anyway, the first English version was published with a different "controlling" language version, in 1994, and in 1995, the "controlling version" was Latin, which is always the best "controlling" version, because Latin doesn't change, like French or English or Chinese change. If ever there's a question of interpretation with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Latin version is the "highest court of appeal." Latin is the Church's "original" language.

Cf. John 19:20 (KJV)
Click to expand...
No, Christ Jesus is the head of the church not Peter or Paul or any of the apostles!
 
meshak

meshak

BANNED
Banned
marhig said:
Please don't think I'm going on, but I've never heard anyone say this before, if someone doesn't believe that Christ is risen, what do they believe? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Those pro-military Christians don't even know what Christianity is all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top