The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[noy]

---

OT -bay Noy, pangutan-on gani ka niyag unsang lasihas kahoy ang gigamit para lansangan ni Jesus ikaw ra gyud

pwede na nato iresearch slabs.. LOL

kaingun man sab tag OMG as in Oh my google.. hahaha

[Boyen]

OT -bay Noy, pangutan-on gani ka niyag unsang lasihas kahoy ang gigamit para lansangan ni Jesus ikaw ra gyud

diko mangutana bro kay naunhan ko nimo pero mangutana rako kung unsang klaseha ug numero sa langsang ang gigamit pag lansang kang kristo?

- - - Updated - - -

tungod kay lahi ug time scale sa unang panahon bro..like jews back then consider 6AM sa atong oras karun as the start of a new day
while it is 12am for us. or Jews count the months by the moon pud..

kanang 3pm i believe is a convertion from Jewish time to the time scaling(divisions of time) we now know of..
same thing with Sunday as the Lord's day of resurrection.. as it was written,Jesus rose on the third day for them(jewish time scale)
but technically if sa atoang time scaling wala pa niabut ug exactly 3 days.

but atoa man dapat sundon kung unsay nasuwat at least duol2x sa actual happenings mao muingon ta on the third day he rose again(nagbase sa Jewish Time Scaling) unya magcelebrate ta less than 72 hours sa resurrection ni Jesus(which is sunday kadlawun from 3pm friday)

Hope wa ra ka nisamot ka libog sa akong explanation.. LOL

na murag wako kasabot ani bro

[noy]

diko mangutana bro kay naunhan ko nimo pero mangutana rako kung unsang klaseha ug numero sa langsang ang gigamit pag lansang kang kristo?

- - - Updated - - -



na murag wako kasabot ani bro

haha! pasabut ana bro kay ang time scaling(pagbahin sa oras) sa mga Jews sa unang panahon compared sa atoang panahon karun(which is 24 hour/day na atoang time scaling from 12:00am to 11:59pm) kay lahi ra..

sa ato karun ug muingun tag new day starting from 12AM
sa mga jew,panahon ni Kristo new day = pagsubang sa adlaw more or less mga 6am

according to this link:Jewish Time

The Jewish day does not begin and end at midnight as does the secular calendar day. Midnight is not a distinguishable astronomic event. In the era before the modern clock, a specific hour of the night could not be precisely known, whereas an hour of the day was easily determined by sighting the location of the sun. Thus, the day had to begin by precise, simple and universally recognized standards. This meant that the day had to be reckoned either from the beginning of night or the beginning of day.

therefore as the article suggests, Jewish time scale counts one day either from 6AM-6PM or 6PM to 6AM(basing from current time scale)
sa binisaya pa, sa pagsubang sa adlaw, usa na na ka adlaw para nila.
sa pagsawp pud sa adlaw, lain na pud na nga adlaw.
(although this is just how i understood Jewish time scale ha but i could be wrong...so if naay kahibaw sa specs diri..please enlighten..thank you)

kadtong 3pm nga oras sa pagkamatay sa atong Ginoo kay convertion na sa original txt nga 9th hour sa Jewish time Scaling..
so kung 6am(our time scaling) magstart ang day sa Jewish time scaling therefore and 9th hour would be 3PM(our time scaling).

and kanang 3 days after Jesus died, he rose again..dili na necessarily 72 hours or literally 3 days(our time scaling)..
because kanang phrase nga on the third day He rose again based na siya sa scripture nga ang gibasehan sa paghisgut sa oras kay Jewish time Scaling(pagsubang sa adlaw hangtud sa pagsawp ang usa ka adlaw para nila) butang ta lang uf 6am to 6pm sa current time scaling ha

first day(6am-6pm) - on the 9th hour which 3pm sa atoang time scale namatay si kristo
second day(6pm-6am)
third day(6am-6pm)-nabanhaw si Kristo

therefore 3 days after His death Siya nabanhaw basing from JEWISH time scaling
dili sa atoang current time scaling nga gigamit karun..

hope this makes sense.. if libog gihapun, i guess i'm not able to simplify the explaination further..my apologies..

[Boyen]

ah ok bro gets na nako...

murag naay part sa bible nga nag mention ug iglesya ni kristo ROMA 16:16 man cguro,, nagpasabot ba kini nga mao nah ang matuod nga relihiyon ug dili ang katoliko?

[noy]

ah ok bro gets na nako...

murag naay part sa bible nga nag mention ug iglesya ni kristo ROMA 16:16 man cguro,, nagpasabot ba kini nga mao nah ang matuod nga relihiyon ug dili ang katoliko?

bro, please ko review sa akoang gipost kay ako tong gi edit ug mas detalyado nga explanation. thank you
i don't see how Romans 16:16 relates to our topic by the way..unless it's another question which i believe is somewhat OT 'cause it's not a question directed to Catholicism

anyways, kanang Iglesia ni Kristo kay si Felix Manalo ang nagsugod ana and it started 1914..
Iglesia ni Cristo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a little trivia about greek translations from this link:The ekklesia and the kuriakon | The Assembling of the Church

The Greek term ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) is normally translated by the English word “church” in the New Testament. What most people do not know is that the English word “church” did not originate from the word ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) nor from the concept of the ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) as expressed in the New Testament.
Instead, the English word “church” originated with the Greek word κυριακός‚ (kuriakos), which means “belonging to the Lord”. This word is used twice in the New Testament:

therefore dili nato unta na himuong basehan ang romans 16:16(greek bible) sa atong pagpangita sa dalan nga gibutang ni Kristo 'cause it takes a lot more than Greek translations, it even takes a lot more than religion or denomination itself.

the Catholic Church started when Christ apointed His apostles which can be traced through Apostolic Succession...
ikaw lay timbang2x bro..
i have nothing against INC, not in for conparison as well.. i'm sure that they have their reasons for their Faith. it's between them and God.

mao as much as possible let's stick with the topic. ask questions about Roman Catholicism lang bro.

[TheSunKing]

Repost from Catholic Spirituality thread;

If you remember your theology,you know that:

1.complying with biblical principles is a problem. What are these biblical principles? do these principles precede from the bible, i.e, before the bible, these principles are already there or are these principles created after the bible, i.e., interpretations based on the bible? this is also a problem because what is the standard of correct interpretation ?

2.church tradition is also a problem. what is considered as tradition from mere history? the early Christians did not practice "confessions" as we do today, so does that mean that the sacrament of confession is not a tradition? there are alot of practices today, particularly in our liturgy, that was never practiced before. Is it a break from tradition?

3.this is also a problem. are you saying that theological soundness is determined by its consistency with the CCC? the CCC is, of course, as its name implies, a catechism. How can it be the standard?

4. this is also a problem. the universal church in rome? there are older traditions than the roman church. the eastern churches have their own popes and bishops. so which universal church (this is already an oxy*****)?


On St. Paul's warning that you mentioned, can you help us understand what the historical context for this warning? the quote needs a lot of explanation. when st. paul said "sound doctrine" which doctrine did he refer to ? the doctrine of Peter? of any council?

[blackdream]

ah ok bro gets na nako...

murag naay part sa bible nga nag mention ug iglesya ni kristo ROMA 16:16 man cguro,, nagpasabot ba kini nga mao nah ang matuod nga relihiyon ug dili ang katoliko?

Murag dli rman sa Roma ni gawas ang term nga Iglesya bro, bsan sa uban sulat naa man jd na sya kay sa uban nga nga translation sa bible gi simplify man gd nla mao na ang "Simbahan".

OT : Gi twist rana sa iglesya kay para mo exist ilang name sa bible. hehehehehehehe

[noy]

If you remember your theology,you know that:

1.complying with biblical principles is a problem. What are these biblical principles? do these principles precede from the bible, i.e, before the bible, these principles are already there or are these principles created after the bible, i.e., interpretations based on the bible? this is also a problem because what is the standard of correct interpretation ?

*Athough everything in the bible is considered sacred and holy,
to be specific biblical principles about Loving God above all else and others as ourselves.
*Only God knows knows the correct interpretation of Biblical accounts.
the Catholic Church does not interpret the Bible nor based her doctrine on how the Church Leader interprets scriptures but as to how it has been said and done in Apostolic times. hence apostolic tradition.
*Can you be more specific on what biblical principles have similarities with non-Catholic teachings?

2.church tradition is also a problem. what is considered as tradition from mere history? the early Christians did not practice "confessions" as we do today, so does that mean that the sacrament of confession is not a tradition? there are alot of practices today, particularly in our liturgy, that was never practiced before. Is it a break from tradition?

John 20:21-23
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
(This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)
hence called a Sacrament as it was instituted by Christ.

for further details: The Forgiveness of Sins | Catholic Answers

*can you be more specific on which part of the liturgy are you referring to?

3.this is also a problem. are you saying that theological soundness is determined by its consistency with the CCC? the CCC is, of course, as its name implies, a catechism. How can it be the standard?

Standard in terms of its basis and sources.
Catechism of the Catholic Church is a summary of the Catholic principles and teachings as well as practices. their sources and history most importantly their significance and purpose.
Naturally a Catholic when confused, should refer to the actual teachings of the Church.

4. this is also a problem. the universal church in rome? there are older traditions than the roman church. the eastern churches have their own popes and bishops. so which universal church (this is already an oxy*****)?

There is only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church which is the Church in Rome.
the other Catholic Churches you're referring to are either in full or partial communion with the Church in Rome.
the ones that are in full communion are Catholic Churches not necessarily Roman Catholic Church like the Coptic Catholic Church, the Latin Church ug uban pa..
which means they are under the shepherding of the Holy See in Rome.
others are in partial communion like the Orthodox catholic church, some Lutheran Churches..
The traditions and practices despite of some slight differences are being shared within the entire Catholic Church. regardless if in full or partial communion.
The Traditions precedes the division of Churches dating back to the time of apostolic fathers. hence held Sacred.

by the way other Catholic churches do have Bishops but only the Roman Catholic Church has a Pope.

On St. Paul's warning that you mentioned, can you help us understand what the historical context for this warning? the quote needs a lot of explanation. when st. paul said "sound doctrine" which doctrine did he refer to ? the doctrine of Peter? of any council?

sound doctrine would obviously mean anything that comes from Christ and those He has given the authority to do His earthly works and their successors

and could be in a form of letter or by word.

[Boyen]

sa bibliya,,, makadaghan gi mention ang IGLISYA SA DIOS... nagpasabot ba kini nga mao ang matuod nga relihiyon?

mao ba usab kini ang relihiyon sa mga apostoles?

[noy]

sa bibliya,,, makadaghan gi mention ang IGLISYA SA DIOS... nagpasabot ba kini nga mao ang matuod nga relihiyon?

mao ba usab kini ang relihiyon sa mga apostoles?

sa mga apostoles ni manalo bro.. LOL
i believe natubag na ni imung pangutana bai ug OT pud ni.
maski mubasa lang ka ug History makita nimu kung unsa ang relihiyon nga maka trace ug apostolic roots.