E
East_and_West
Guest
Have you read Thomas Aquinas at all?
- Status
R
RyanL
Guest
If you’ve got the time, you should REALLY listen to this lecture:
Fr. Dan Deutsch - The Shroud of Turn.
I was quite surprised at some of the things I learned.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
Come back when you want to discuss seriously.
The hearsay evidence concerns the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, who departed this earth some 2000 years ago.
You’re confusing issues – and badly, I might add.
God Bless,
RyanL
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
Well, it depends on your axiomatic philisophical underpinnings. Where are you philosphically? Have you gotten so far as accepting that the existence of God is a reasonable conclusion for man to come to? That would be the first neccesity. If you come at the perspective that there is a God, then yes, the remainder of history, man’s religious evolution of mind and spirit, scriptures, traditions and the apostolic understanding of the divinity of Jesus Christ would all point to “proof” of Roman Catholicism.
If, on the other hand your philisophical bias is that there is no God, or that God is not intelligent and interactive with man, then Judeo Christian spiritual evolution and philisophical formation are going to just not cut it for you, and Catholics can’t “prove” anything to you any more than the Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Hindus or Wiccans for that matter. It’s all just nonsense without a good philisophical base and understanding of the concepts in that base. In every science, before the scientists can “prove” anything to each other, they must first be in agreement on the irreducable facts germane to the phenomena being studied or discussed.
Proof of Catholicism requires a mutual acceptance between the observers of the premise of a triune God. If we can agree on the Triune God concept going into our discussion, then it’s not difficult to link together the data from agreed upon sources to make a solid case for Catholicism.
I’m guessing you’re looking for empirical data of some sort? I’m afraid Theology doesn’t really work that way. It is a unique science in that regard.
Peace to you. I will pray you find what you’re looking for.
Steven
J
jimmy85
Guest
thanks a lot, I ve been researching about the srhoud of turin and there is incredible evidence that prove his authenticity. for example:
The Nasa took a 3d picture of the radiation of the image in the shroud.
No image nor paintin could ever have a 3d radiation , every paintin only has 2 dimentions, and it dosent have radiation.
The amazing thing is that the Nasa got the radiation of every individual microscopic point in the shroud, they discovered that every microscopic point of the shroud that had more contact with the body had more radiation.
So in the shroud of Turin the radiation is more stronger in the places that the shroud had more contact with the body than the places that the body had less contact with the shroud. all that was at a microscopic level.
It basicaly proves that the radiation in the shroud came from the person.
Also in the shroud of turin there are microscopic polen samples that date exclusibely from the first century and from palestine.
Nowadays that kind of polen sample have been extinghished, that kidn fo polen samples only remains on the shroud of Turin.
So the shroud of Turin did was undoubtly in palestine in the first century.
Every criminologist that study the shroud agree that the image of the shorud, agrees with the gospel and with the cruxifiction that Christ underwent.
The only objection was the carbon14 samples that was erroniusly dated the shroud to medieval times. because of the influence of a bacteria within the shroud that was discover by a mexican syndologist, and becuase of the fact that the shroud of Turin was taken from country to country as a relic in pilgrimages, and it wasent stationary in one place, this distorted the carbon14 test.
There are also proves that prove the existen of the shroud before medieval times. there are plenty of docuemtns that certificate his previous existens and there is an old painting of the emperor in constantinopla reciving the shroud, before medieval times, arround the 10 century.
V
Valke2
Guest
You should speak to Job. He may have some info for you.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Roman Catholicism is based on the bible. The bible itself has no objective evidence to support the idea that it has some divine connections.
D
davidv
Guest
This is patently false. The bible as we know it was assembled after the founding of the Catholic Church. This assembly was the work of the Catholic Church.
R
RyanL
Guest
Lol. Are you really that ignorant of Catholic beliefs?
What – do you think we believe that Jesus “miracled” us a Bible?!?
Oy vey.
God Bless,
RyanL
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
what is the miraculous jesus but a story in the bible. point is there is no evidence for any of those miracle stories.
R
RyanL
Guest
You might try listening to the MP3 I linked above before you go spouting off regarding things you haven’t done your homework on – and that’s just one among thousands of pieces of evidence.
I tell ya’, the most closed-minded, irrational, and unscientific folks I’ve ever encountered have been atheists…
God Bless,
RyanL
J
jimmy85
Guest
Btw this is the 3d picture that was taken by the Nasa of the radiation in the shroud of Turin. As one can see, it wasent a forgery because no paintin could ever have a 3dimentional radiation.
P
patg
Guest
No, its all about faith. You can’t prove anything about the supernatural using human tools.
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
Vatican I disagreas
J
jimmy85
Guest
Hey I really like your webpage it has a lot of cool info in there.
po18guy
Well-known member
Is your problem with scripture itself, with the story of God’s covenants with man, or rather, with the church that Christ founded and which moved to Rome? Do I perceive some disdain in your line of questioning?
Your answer will determine the direction of the replies.
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
How disdain?
B
Bishopite
Guest
Well, the Apostles creed dated around the first century which says “one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
And then there are the early Church fathers who teach Catholic theology starting with St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D. who said:
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." *Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). *
And the quotes from the ECF’s are numerable.
And then there is the council of Nicea 325 A.D. made up of “Catholic” Bishops no NOT Protestants, no Catholic doesn’t mean catholic it means Catholic like the Catholic Church.
And all other future Christian councils are “Catholic Christian councils.”
This is just a scratch on the surface of evidence for the Catholic Church being THE Church Jesus established.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
But Orthodoxy and classical confessional Protestantism also believe in the Resurrection. That in itself does not prove any particular church true.
po18guy
Well-known member
Quite true. The bible is the product of the church, as Christ founded a church in Matthew 16, not a bible.
Christ’s peace.
- Status