toldailytopic: Is attending church necessary for salvation?

Status
Not open for further replies.

zippy2006

New member
I had to smile at the "outside the fire, the ember slowly dies". What ember is dying just because one does not go to church? Paul spent most of his life in Christ in prison and his "ember" was pretty fired up :eek: If one is in Christ, the "ember" never dies - the Holy Spirit is alive and well :Elaine:

Paul also spent his life moving from church to church and living amongst believers, sharing the sacred meal.
 

red cardinal

New member
Paul also spent his life moving from church to church and living amongst believers, sharing the sacred meal.

Correctamundo, [not sure what you mean by "sacred meal"], but I was really trying to make the point that Paul did not need a church to "stir up his embers". He stirred up others with letters while in prison. In other words, you don't need a community for the Holy Spirit to keep your embers glowing :sheep:
 

red cardinal

New member
But it is about church.

I define church as a community of belivers who worship, teach, fellowship, evangelise and serve. It could be monday - saturday as much Sunday.

But Sunday church qualifies ( steeple or no steeple. For STP's benefit I don't do steeples. )

What do you define as church ?

Jim Jones had a community of believers who worshiped, taught, fellowshiped and evangelized and served - in a church. Any thoughts? :chew:
 

unknown

New member
Correctamundo, [not sure what you mean by "sacred meal"], but I was really trying to make the point that Paul did not need a church to "stir up his embers". He stirred up others with letters while in prison. In other words, you don't need a community for the Holy Spirit to keep your embers glowing :sheep:
Then, to whom was Paul writing?
 

zippy2006

New member
Correctamundo, [not sure what you mean by "sacred meal"], but I was really trying to make the point that Paul did not need a church to "stir up his embers". He stirred up others with letters while in prison. In other words, you don't need a community for the Holy Spirit to keep your embers glowing :sheep:

But my point is that Paul is not a sufficient counterexample because he always had a community. Community has always been a staple, from Abraham to Jesus.
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
I appretiate where I wasn't defined enough in my initial comments. Churches need to be believing in Christ, teaching his stuff and worshipping him.

Howevere the question was in a church context so I assumed a christian context

Jim Jones had a community of believers who worshiped, taught, fellowshiped and evangelized and served - in a church. Any thoughts? :chew:
 

red cardinal

New member
I appretiate where I wasn't defined enough in my initial comments. Churches need to be believing in Christ, teaching his stuff and worshipping him.

Howevere the question was in a church context so I assumed a christian context

Jone's church was considered "Christian" by the members and by others in the communities in which he developed his churches. Jesus was preached there. :patrol:
 

red cardinal

New member
But my point is that Paul is not a sufficient counterexample because he always had a community. Community has always been a staple, from Abraham to Jesus.

How could he be in community when he was in prison more than he wasn't? I guess I am not following your line of thought :dunce:
 

red cardinal

New member
You seem to think in terms of a physical community, try thinking in terms of a spiritual one.

So if church is not a physical community, which I believe is how people view what Paul said, then how does one "fellowship" spiritually? And does that misapply what Paul stated?
 

zippy2006

New member
How could he be in community when he was in prison more than he wasn't? I guess I am not following your line of thought :dunce:

Well he belonged to the community and was within Christian communities often. I guess I don't see the modern counterpart, an imprisoned Christian pastor, as someone being without community. His role in the Body is what placed him there. When we say that Christians ought to be in community with each other I don't think of that community as stopping when it comes to someone in prison. That kind of suffering for the faith and for the Body would seem to strengthen rather than deteriorate the communal aspect of the Body.

:e4e:
 

red cardinal

New member
Well he belonged to the community and was within Christian communities often. I guess I don't see the modern counterpart, an imprisoned Christian pastor, as someone being without community. His role in the Body is what placed him there. When we say that Christians ought to be in community with each other I don't think of that community as stopping when it comes to someone in prison. That kind of suffering for the faith and for the Body would seem to strengthen rather than deteriorate the communal aspect of the Body.

:e4e:

So you are clarifying that "church" is a community or body of believers which is not dependent on a physical gathering - it can be believers of like minds, unified in Christ spiritually. Am I on the same page with you on this?
 

Cracked

New member
I had to smile at the "outside the fire, the ember slowly dies". What ember is dying just because one does not go to church? Paul spent most of his life in Christ in prison and his "ember" was pretty fired up :eek: If one is in Christ, the "ember" never dies - the Holy Spirit is alive and well :Elaine:

No - Paul was constantly in communion with other Christians, as best as he could. He would not have been in prison if he didn't have to. I believe he was only a prisoner for about 7 or so years , while he was an apostle for about 30.

Regardless, Paul's prison time is not an example for other Christians in the sense we are talking about it here (certainly, if the Gospel lands us in prison, so be it). The churches Paul ministered to lived in communion. My statement is essentially true - Christians are meant to be with other Christians, in one form or another.
 

unknown

New member
yes, quite adamantly!

where I'm coming from.............

The Bond
(Continued from Matan Torah)


All of Israel is responsible for one another (Sanhedrin, 27, 72)

This is to speak of the bond when all of Israel became responsible for one another. Because the Torah was not given to them before each of them was asked if he would take upon himself the mitzvah (precept) of loving others in the full measure expressed in the words: “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. That means that each and every one in Israel took upon himself to care and work for each member of the nation and satisfy their every need; no less than the amount imprinted in him to care for his own needs.

And once the whole nation unanimously agreed and said: “we shall do and we shall hear ( Exodus24,7 )”, then each member of Israel became responsible that nothing shall be missing from any other member of the nation, and only then did they become worthy of receiving the Torah. With this encompassing responsibility each member of the nation became free of worrying for the needs of his own body, and could observe the mitzvah of “Love thy neighbour as thyself” in the fullest extent and give each needy member everything he has, since he no longer cared for the existence of his own body, as he now knows that six hundred thousand loyal lovers stand ready to provide for him.
full article @
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/matan_torah/the_bond.htm


Exodus 24

7And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

I know you will say this pertains to Israel, but it in fact pertains to “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. The same “Love thy neighbour as thyself” that Christianity claims. In fact it is, in Christianity, the second greatest commandment.

How can it be achieved if a person is alone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top