Catholicism

[Castle Church]

Yeah, my friend goes there and from the way she talks, in time, the church will be no more. Which I don’t get since they’re such a big denomination in the USA

In time they will likely get closer to the Episcopal Church. There are already shared parishes and the two denominations have a pulpit fellowship. It is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for the ELCA, TEC and UMC to merge in the next 20 years as a United Church as we see in some other countries already. All are facing real issues in membership and funding.

 

[Castle Church]

In the end you should go where the Spirit leads you, where you are taught and are "filled up" by Jesus. Maybe that is the RCC, maybe that is a Lutheran church, maybe somewhere else.

But don't base that decision on something that is really just not a part of the churches we are talking about here. Base it on the actual teachings and how those teachings manifest in reality among the people and the church.

 

[Faith]

In time they will likely get closer to the Episcopal Church. There are already shared parishes and the two denominations have a pulpit fellowship. It is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for the ELCA, TEC and UMC to merge in the next 20 years as a United Church as we see in some other countries already. All are facing real issues in membership and funding.

I want to be part of a church community, a vibrant one. I’ve been trying to talk to people more, saying more than the obligatory “hi, how are you doing?” I have a lot of anxiety and it can be hard for me to converse with people I don’t know well, in person.

 

[Faith]

In the end you should go where the Spirit leads you, where you are taught and are "filled up" by Jesus. Maybe that is the RCC, maybe that is a Lutheran church, maybe somewhere else.

But don't base that decision on something that is really just not a part of the churches we are talking about here. Base it on the actual teachings and how those teachings manifest in reality among the people and the church.

IOW, you agree that this 6,000 year old thing isnt part of the churches we’re talking about here and I shouldnt let this obsession of mine influence my decision?

 

[Castle Church]

IOW, you agree that this 6,000 year old thing isnt part of the churches we’re talking about here and I shouldnt let this obsession of mine influence my decision?

Yes, I do agree that this should not be a foundational issue as it is not really an issue doctrinally or dogmatically. I personally have been around a fair amount of different denominations, and it can be tough to understand what is official and what is not, and to differentiate when something may not be official, but is also not discouraged - the line can blur. For example veneration of saints and their statues often seems to stray past mere veneration and into worship, it may not be endorsed by the Curia, but is is also not discouraged. So, not official, but not discouraged, and therefore very concerning and worth pondering on.

But in this case it is pretty clear that it is not official, and not really something that needs to be discouraged. It is however, very cultural to the LCMS. In reality, over the last year, how often has this issue come up in sermons or conversation with other members (when it was not initiated by you)?

 

[Albion]

IOW, you agree that this 6,000 year old thing isnt part of the churches we’re talking about here and I shouldnt let this obsession of mine influence my decision?

He'll answer for himself, but I'm getting the feeling that no solution that we've touched upon will suffice for you. There is something wrong with every church that could be a possible answer, and it appears that the Roman Catholic Church still commands your loyalty on certain doctrines that are unique to her.

That being the case, you probably will have to use some other guideline or standard, one that hasn't really been discussed so far, in order to decide which church to go with.

 

[Josiah]

I'm been a member of an LCMS church for many years now....and this issue has never come up. In sermons or Bible studies.

I don't know what my pastor's personal, non-binding, non-dogmatic opinion is on this. He's never said.


.

 

[Faith]

He'll answer for himself, but I'm getting the feeling that no solution that we've touched upon will suffice for you. There is something wrong with every church that could be a possible answer, and it appears that the Roman Catholic Church still commands your loyalty on certain doctrines that are unique to her.

That being the case, you probably will have to use some other guideline or standard, one that hasn't really been discussed so far, in order to decide which church to go with.

 

[Faith]

Wrong. Talked to my pastor for a long time today in email and the help from him plus what I got here from Josiah helped me, a lot. Now it’s all good. I plan on staying put.

 

[Albion]

Wrong. Talked to my pastor for a long time today in email and the help from him plus what I got here from Josiah helped me, a lot. Now it’s all good. I plan on staying put.

Good news! We're happy for you.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Has he proven the earth is six thousand years old using Scripture?

The genealogies of Jesus from Matthew and Luke. None of those people lived on Earth for millions of years.

 

[Faith]

The genealogies of Jesus from Matthew and Luke. None of those people lived on Earth for millions of years.

So you’re saying the genealogies prove 6,000 years or they don’t.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

So you’re saying the genealogies prove 6,000 years or they don’t.

If I may throw in my 2 cents, I would say that it does not "prove" 6000 years but strongly implies thousands, not tens of thousands or more, years, and it is a huge impediment to anyone trying to fit long ages (millions or billions of years) into the Bible.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

The genealogies of Jesus from Matthew and Luke. None of those people lived on Earth for millions of years.

Show me where I claimed that they did.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

So you’re saying the genealogies prove 6,000 years or they don’t.

If I may throw in my 2 cents, I would say that it does not "prove" 6000 years but strongly implies thousands, not tens of thousands or more, years, and it is a huge impediment to anyone trying to fit long ages (millions or billions of years) into the Bible.

^
This. It literally mentions 42 generations. Multiply 42 with an average human lifespan and you don't get millions of years.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

^
This. It literally mentions 42 generations. Multiply 42 with an average human lifespan and you don't get millions of years.

Still waiting for proof I said people lived for thousands or millions of years.

It literally does not mention 42 generations. See for yourself. This is from Matthew 1:

17] So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. It's true that if you multiply 14x3 you'll get 42, but the Bible never says "42 generations." When quoting Scripture, you must quote what it actually says.

In any case, this passage, genealogy, and the genealogy given in Luke, are about the lineage of Jesus, not the age of the earth. If you must use a genealogy to prove the age of the earth, the one you want to be quoting is in Genesis 5.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Still waiting for proof I said people lived for thousands or millions of years.

I never claimed you said that. You misunderstood me.

When quoting Scripture, you must quote what it actually says.

I disagree with that. I find it nonsense.

 

[Lees]

I never claimed you said that. You misunderstood me.


I disagree with that. I find it nonsense.

Yes, you did claim that. See post #(51). So explain yourself.

You find Scripture nonsense? Of course you do.

The genealogy in (Matthew) is incomplete because it only takes it back to Abraham. Go to (Genesis) and you find the early genealogical record and the years the people lived.

Many lived to almost 1000 years old. That is the testimony of Scripture.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

Yes, you did claim that. See post #(51). So explain yourself.

You find Scripture nonsense? Of course you do.

The genealogy in (Matthew) is incomplete because it only takes it back to Abraham. Go to (Genesis) and you find the early genealogical record and the years the people lived.

Many lived to almost 1000 years old. That is the testimony of Scripture.

Lees

He was claiming that scripture did not prove it and he didn't say scripture is nonsense but that ideology that was brought up is nonsense.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I never claimed you said that. You misunderstood me.


I disagree with that. I find it nonsense.

So we don't have to quote Scripture accurately? We can just insert things that aren't there? We can say God said things He never said? That's a dangerous practice.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk