The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[R.Forster]

---

Isda.. isda mo diha

Nga Nga nasad?

Asa naman tong gi ingun nimo na mo dismiss ko ug "proof" ninyo na walay basehan?

Usapa ning carbon dating sa Shroud of Turin o

In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 CE, with 95% confidence. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:

• Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
• Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
• Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
• the weighted mean was 689 ± 16 years, which corresponds to calibrated ages of CE 1273-1288 with 68% confidence, and CE 1262-1384 with 95% confidence.

The Roman Catholic Church's Lies Exposed Again! FAKE FAKE FAKE!

[NapoleonBlownapart]

Nga Nga nasad?

Asa naman tong gi ingun nimo na mo dismiss ko ug "proof" ninyo na walay basehan?

Usapa ning carbon dating sa Shroud of Turin o


The Roman Catholic Church's Lies Exposed Again! FAKE FAKE FAKE!

Unsa kalabutan sa shroud of Turin sa mga sinulat nila ni Tacitus? For the record lang wala ko nipalit anang storya sa shroud of Turin.. haha..

Kana gud pag dismiss nimo sa ilang mga sinulat ka klaro ana.. mangita pa jud ka.. wala bitaw nay basehan.. sa pikas thread gipangitaan ka naabot man kay James Ossuary nya diri shroud of Turin na pud.. Mura man kag langaw pulag lubot sigeg balhin-balhin.. asa lage ang ebidensya nga tampered ang ilang mga sinulat?

@noy, palit kag isda? barato ra ang kilo sa Herring kay abundansya kaayo rong mga panahona..

[noy]

Hey Guys, this thread caters questions regarding the Catholic Church's teachings and doctrines.

Historicity of Jesus has been proven historically through writers of antiquity examined by scholars and experts of the said field
not only from those who write about Christianity especially those who write against Christianity. there are also neutral and non-Christian sources..such as Josephus and Tacitus nga usa pud sa mga main references of Jesus' historicity.
as far as the Catholic perspective is concerned. mao na ang side sa Catholic Church regarding the subject.

now, if di mu mudawat ana..adto mu pag discuss ana sa existing threads that deals with the subject for further discussions.
as much as we want to discuss about your point of views opposite with that of the Catholic Church regarding the historicity of Jesus in this thread, Unfortunately it would be out of topic.

the thread title is RCC questions..Let's limit our discussions lang to Q and A.
again, Answers should come from the Catholic Perspective as the thread suggests..
bahalag di mu Catholic or even di mu mutuo ug Ginoo..if you want to answer..answer within the teachings of the Catholic Church
kay mao may purpose ani nga thread.

Thanks.
of course dili ko mod but we don't have to be a moderator to know unsay insakto kabahin sa forum discussions.
if magpadayon tang dili maminaw..then we'll have to call the police AKA moderator.

[noy]

basta mangayo lng ug pasaylo, forgiven na automatic bai noy tungod sa crucifiction ni Jesus? tinood kaha na bai noy nga mao na ang hinungdan sa pagka lansang ni Jesus sa cross? possible pud ba nga dili na maoy hinungdan?

basta tinud.anay nga mangayo ug pasaylo jovs forgiven na.
as far as the Catholic Theological point of view is concerned, mao nay rason sa pagkamatay ni Jesus, wala nay lain..
2 cor.5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. "

[R.Forster]

Unsa kalabutan sa shroud of Turin sa mga sinulat nila ni Tacitus? For the record lang wala ko nipalit anang storya sa shroud of Turin.. haha..

Kana gud pag dismiss nimo sa ilang mga sinulat ka klaro ana.. mangita pa jud ka.. wala bitaw nay basehan.. sa pikas thread gipangitaan ka naabot man kay James Ossuary nya diri shroud of Turin na pud.. Mura man kag langaw pulag lubot sigeg balhin-balhin.. asa lage ang ebidensya nga tampered ang ilang mga sinulat?

@noy, palit kag isda? barato ra ang kilo sa Herring kay abundansya kaayo rong mga panahona..

Isa lang na sa mga examples nang Shroud of Turin ug James Ossuary sa mga forged and tampered "christ" evidence, while kanang ginapanghambog ninyo na Tacitus ang mga kristiyanong scholar ra ang mu declare na fact jud nang kay tacitus like the pastor scholar (scholar daw kuno) Van Vorst.

Experts suggest na kanang mga documents ni tacitus si Poggio Bracciolini ang nag forge ana, si Poggio Bracciolini ay usa ka writer ug scholar who worked under the pope during the medieval ages.

[R.Forster]

Historicity of Jesus has been proven historically through writers of antiquity examined by scholars and experts of the said field
not only from those who write about Christianity especially those who write against Christianity. there are also neutral and non-Christian sources..such as Josephus and Tacitus nga usa pud sa mga main references of Jesus' historicity.
as far as the Catholic perspective is concerned. mao na ang side sa Catholic Church regarding the subject..

Pataka na sad, kanang mga "scholars and experts" nimo puros ra sad na mga christiano mao maski walay klaro ang ebidensiya mu buot buot dayun ug declare na "FACT" ni siya.

Tan.awa ang background sa imung mga idol na "experts" puros ra pud mga kristiyano, buot buot ug declare na Jesus Christ really existed.

James Dunn (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amy-Jill Levine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
E. P. Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Craig A. Evans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert E. Van Voorst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[R.Forster]

Since Catholic thread mani, mangutana na lang sad ko kung tanggap na ninyo na dili diay mao ang hitsura sa Hesu Kristo na inyong gina luhod-luhoran? kay sa shroud of turin man mo nag base kung unsa ang hitsura sa hesu kristo ninyo



According to the official carbon dating year 1262-1384 man daw gi himo ang shroud of turin layo ra kaayo sa lifetime sa fictional jesus christ



So dawat na ninyo na dili na mao ang hitsura sa fictional jesus ninyo?

[noy]

Pataka na sad, kanang mga "scholars and experts" nimo puros ra sad na mga christiano mao maski walay klaro ang ebidensiya mu buot buot dayun ug declare na "FACT" ni siya.

Tan.awa ang background sa imung mga idol na "experts" puros ra pud mga kristiyano, buot buot ug declare na Jesus Christ really existed.

James Dunn (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amy-Jill Levine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
E. P. Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Craig A. Evans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert E. Van Voorst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course, naay mga Christian researchers involved. pero ang pangutana karun..kana ra ba silang mga researchers nga imung gihinganlan ang mga proponent sa historical Jesus? of course dili..daghan pa sigurong mga researchers nga involved.
otherwise, wala tay ingun ani nga mabasa from this wiki: Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted."

NOTE: not all biblical scholars are Christians, it just means these people are scholars who deal with the sciptures concerning its literary details.
and of course, Classical History as we all know is not exclusive for Christianity.
therefore, there is a HUGE possibility nga dili lang mga Christian researchers ang ning confirm with the historicity of Jesus.

since nag claim man ka nga puro Christian or rather majority sa mga proponents sa Historical Jesus nga study, so mao sa pikas thread sige ko ug pangayo nimu to present verified Statistics that would show the actual population and religious views of the researchers involved. pero wala jud kay na provide bisag usa..
therefore we can dismiss your claim as a rediculous conspiracy theory.

furthermore, some of the basis for Jesus' historicity are coming from non-christian sources..some are even from anti-Christian sources..
now, as we all know..sige ka ug ingun sa pikas thread or even ngari nga forged tong kang Josephus and Tacitus nga accounts regarding Jesus as usual wala gihapun kay na present nga ACTUAL PROOF nga those documents were actually forged and tampered. therefore we can again dismiss your claim as another rediculous conspiracy theory..

again, you are way out of the context as far as this thread is concerned.
wa koy paki alam ug unsay imung tan.aw sa amoang Jesus..pero kung
mag sige kag pasudayag sa imung gibati which is OT kung buot huna-hunaon and not to mention in an offensive manner which directly violates the forum rule number 2.
then we will have no other choice but to raise this matter to the authorities of this Forum.for a forumer since '07 you should be familiar with these terms.

perhaps we can treat this one as a question although in a seemingly odd fashion..

Since Catholic thread mani, mangutana na lang sad ko kung tanggap na ninyo na dili diay mao ang hitsura sa Hesu Kristo na inyong gina luhod-luhoran? kay sa shroud of turin man mo nag base kung unsa ang hitsura sa hesu kristo ninyo



According to the official carbon dating year 1262-1384 man daw gi himo ang shroud of turin layo ra kaayo sa lifetime sa fictional jesus christ



So dawat na ninyo na dili na mao ang hitsura sa fictional jesus ninyo?

First of all, The Catholic Church has never been absolute about the images of Christ that we have for representation and even for veneration.
that's why the images are called depictions because they are not actual portraits.
so unsa may angay dawaton? Lol

regarding the shroud of turin, while many Catholics including priests, and even the recently canonized saint Pope John Paul consider the shroud as an actual relic and Pope benedict see it as something that would remind us of Christ's passion..
the shroud is still not an article of faith, meaning the Church although allows the shroud to be venerated just like other images of the crucified Christ in Catholic Parishes, never have had formal declaration that the Shroud indeed was the burial cloth of Christ.

therefore whether it is or isn't Christ's image on the linen, it doesn't have an impact to the Catholic Church as far as declarations are concerned.
which then invalidates your question teeming with prejudice towards the Catholic Faith.

besides, while the carbon dating results were accurate in terms of process
there are many Factors why despite of its process accuracy, the conclusion that the shroud as a medieval forgery does not have absolute hold.

here are 5 reasons why the medieval forgery conclusion is far from being absolute.

1. The cloth and what is on it
2. The substance comprising the image is still unknown
3. The formation of the image
4. The age of the cloth
5. Shroud is totally consistent with Biblical accounts of Jesus’ death

for further details regarding these 5 factors. click the link below:
Five reasons why the Shroud of Turin could be authentic - BizPac Review

as far as your questions are concerned. you have been provided with an answer coming from the catholic perspective.

[H.Wolowitz]

kinsa na siya bai?

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

[noy]

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

ok. haha..

sige next question na pud guro ta..