toldailytopic: Is attending church necessary for salvation?

Status
Not open for further replies.

red cardinal

New member
The Buddha taught the principle "Love your neighbor as yourself" 500 years before Christ came on the scene.

Buddha - this text from the Raja Sutra:

Searching all directions with one's awareness,
One finds no one dearer than oneself.
In the same way, others are fiercely dear to themselves.
So one should not hurt others if one loves oneself.

The emphasis on Christ's words was to love others more than self. Buddha emphasizing that loving one's self is more important. I don't think the two statements match in the least :nono: Jesus did not say one "should not hurt", He said "Love one another".


Being a Pharisee, Paul would have been very well educated in the Kabbalistic viewpoint. In fact what he is claiming with his testimony about what happened on the Damascus road, if true, would by definition make him a Kabbalist (one who has received) . Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc were all Kabbalists. The NT always references the OT, if the writers were not Kabbalists, meaning those who have received (and what is received is "Torah" a Hebrew word for "enlightenment" or more common today "instruction" ) the writers would not be qualified to write anything. How could they teach something they don't have?

kabbalah is not just a quaint little word meaning "received". It means mystical, esoteric teachings that are founded in the Zohar not even compiled and "received" until the 1300s AD!!! the kabbalah is based in the sefirotic tree - a concept that did not exist in the first century.

Can you show me that "Torah" originally meant "enlightenment" - like do you have scholarly source - aka Hebrew scholar language expert, or lexicon/concordance definition?
 

zippy2006

New member
From my perspective, I see that American Christians view Christianity from a different view point than the rest of the world. They seem caught up in the additions and programs rather than the peripheral social issues, which lends them to believe that their "church community" is the formula for "correct" application of Paul's words. In reality, this is a false dichotomy.

These statements are really too vague to address, but I agree with you to some extent. I am a Catholic and I think much of American Protestantism is very much entrenched in that problem. I don't think it holds for American Catholics, in fact I think they tend to err in the other direction. But to be honest I don't have a clear picture of Christianity in the rest of the world. :idunno:

You stated: "In fact I don't know how you could become a Christian absent relations with that community."

So I read that as saying that if you are not in community aka going to a church, then you are not a Christian. Did I miss something?

But my whole post nuanced that view, which you seem to have overlooked. And even the part you quote is misunderstood; I talked about becoming a Christian, not being a Christian. I guess I feel like that post you quoted from already expresses my view and answers this question.
 

graceandpeace

New member
I am Open Theist and my pastor is Arminian. We are both Pentecostal, both affirm the Trinity, Deity, resurrection of Christ, etc. I am Moral Government Theology on the atonement, but he is more classical Arminian. We both reject Calvinism. I am moderate on alcohol, but he is against it. We agree on far more than we disagree on. My old pastor was open to Open Theism, but not dogmatic about Young Earth Creationism (which I am...he was open to theistic evolution). I deny original sin, but they affirmed it.

Some issues are salvific and others are not. I tend to read a book during his good sermons. His messages are biblical, but not always deeply doctrinal (if they are, they are basic vs controversial). I am not afraid to disagree with him (I work closely since I am an elder) and he gives me freedom of conscience within parameters since the Holy Spirit is my boss, not Him).

http://www.paganchristianity.org/

You would like this and I share some concerns, but it is an overreaction. House churches also have problems and are a placebo vs panacea.

Let us be part of the solution vs problem and support a local church, godly leadership, but bold enough to disagree and be change agents in love and humility.

The myth that the early church was perfect is just that. There were divisions, doctrinal disputes, moral issues, yet Paul did not throw the baby out with the bathwater. He brought correction, not cessation of support or removal from a God-given institution (Catholics have a bigger problem, but Protestants, even evangelicals, need reform).


Good post, godrulz.;)
 

graceandpeace

New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by red cardinal
I don't understand how your pastor can be correct on the "essentials of the faith/gospel" but then test what he says and disagree. If he is teaching the "essentials" then what do you disagree with him on. Sorry, if that makes no sense to me

I think you may not perceive that pastorship is really a form of "programing" - which may be subtle, but really just another form of what Jim Jones did. The outcome may not be physical death, but I can surely see the negative spiritual ramifications.

That is why every christian should be as the Bereans, and prove what they hear is what is written, and should not be afraid to speak up within a congregation if it is not.

We need more of this type of people in the churches...if there were, alot of the fluff would be dealt with. (untruths)

It is because a 'christian' for the most part really doesnt understand their responsibility to their fellow brethren, that this is not done. Too much emphasis on creeds/etc..has replaced the ability of the holy spirit to work in a congregation. I for one, speak up...not going to keep me shut up..LOL

I attend a Baptist organization; will not join in membership, because I told them point blank...it is not required; and, that it is a man made doctrine; put in place to keep people from allowing the holy spirit to really work in their life. Not going to spoon feed this one, LOL.

I know better.

At the same time, there is a time and a place for everything. You do not stand up in the middle of a sermon and start on a rampage if you hear something that is not biblically correct in your opinion. You wait and take it to them in private...if they don't hear you, you have still done your part. People need to learn what comes with being a christian; RESPONSIBILITY.

Taking a viewpoint of...'well, I will just sit at home, and let the blind lead the blind does not in one way show the love of God to anyone'.
We really are our brothers keeper...but, in some cases, some of us have forgotten.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Church membership does not have to be evil. It can be practical relating to government necessitated business meetings/voting, etc. It can be based on biblical principles, not legalisms, control, etc.
 

red cardinal

New member
But my whole post nuanced that view, which you seem to have overlooked. And even the part you quote is misunderstood; I talked about becoming a Christian, not being a Christian. I guess I feel like that post you quoted from already expresses my view and answers this question.

So you believe that one cannot be saved aka becomes a Christian unless one attends a church?
 

red cardinal

New member
Quote:


That is why every christian should be as the Bereans, and prove what they hear is what is written, and should not be afraid to speak up within a congregation if it is not.

We need more of this type of people in the churches...if there were, alot of the fluff would be dealt with. (untruths)

It is because a 'christian' for the most part really doesnt understand their responsibility to their fellow brethren, that this is not done. Too much emphasis on creeds/etc..has replaced the ability of the holy spirit to work in a congregation. I for one, speak up...not going to keep me shut up..LOL

I attend a Baptist organization; will not join in membership, because I told them point blank...it is not required; and, that it is a man made doctrine; put in place to keep people from allowing the holy spirit to really work in their life. Not going to spoon feed this one, LOL.

I know better.

At the same time, there is a time and a place for everything. You do not stand up in the middle of a sermon and start on a rampage if you hear something that is not biblically correct in your opinion. You wait and take it to them in private...if they don't hear you, you have still done your part. People need to learn what comes with being a christian; RESPONSIBILITY.

Taking a viewpoint of...'well, I will just sit at home, and let the blind lead the blind does not in one way show the love of God to anyone'.
We really are our brothers keeper...but, in some cases, some of us have forgotten.

So if a person chooses to avoid going through all that, by not attending a church [because a pastor that takes "correction" about what he is teaching is extremely rare], then are they still "missing something"? Or do you think they can find fellowship in another way that would encourage others and share the Word?
 

red cardinal

New member
Church membership does not have to be evil. It can be practical relating to government necessitated business meetings/voting, etc. It can be based on biblical principles, not legalisms, control, etc.

Do you agree that church membership means that you have put your "stamp of approval" on whatever is taught there, the statement of faith, programs, teachings, studies, etc? That you are in agreement with all things preached from the pulpit, and decisions made within the "consistory"/"counsel"? Why else would you "join" - isn't that the purpose of "membership"?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Do you agree that church membership means that you have put your "stamp of approval" on whatever is taught there, the statement of faith, programs, teachings, studies, etc? That you are in agreement with all things preached from the pulpit, and decisions made within the "consistory"/"counsel"? Why else would you "join" - isn't that the purpose of "membership"?

No, that sounds like a controlling group. The standards would be biblical, not extra/contrabiblical. There should be agreement with a minimal statement of faith lest we allow cultists to vote and create confusion/division. It does not mean conformity or blanket agreement with everything, but a general commitment to the family of God in this local setting. It establishes a bare minimum standard for practical things like voting on leadership and business decisions. I would not want someone who is undermining the ministry of a particular church having inordinate power without recourse. It is actually a legal requirement in Canada for a charitable organization.

Like other things, it can be a neutral issue, used or misused. Superspiritual types tend to over react, but we do many things culturally that are not explicitly commanded or forbidden in Scripture. Love and unity can be aided by a mutual commitment. It is not tied in with salvation, communion, etc. (I guess our church is mature, balanced, so it is not a problem).
 

graceandpeace

New member
Church membership does not have to be evil. It can be practical relating to government necessitated business meetings/voting, etc. It can be based on biblical principles, not legalisms, control, etc.

everyone that I have been to, wants you to obtain membership so that they can 'rule' over you.
....by their particular traditions. That is why I will never be a member of any of them...but, I also believe that they are God's people; misled in how a 'church' should be run. It was never meant to be run by men; but Christ. If every church fully let Christ run it; and let the holy spirit work where He wants to work, instead of putting stipulations, etc....quenching the spirit; we would never of had 'denominationalsim' to begin with. Christ would not fail...men do.

Which is exactly why so many differing teachings today. They are all based on following this man; or that man...etc..instead of Christ alone.

God has His people scattered in all of them, though...they hear HIS voice...and are taught of Him.

We meet to fellowship, and to work for unity, not division, as denominationalism is all about.
...and, I do believe the part in yellow should be DONE by anyone whom would call themself a christian. If they decide they don't need to; it is their flesh talking, not what God would want. God wants us to be together; working for His unity...you cannot work for unity from the outside.
 

graceandpeace

New member
So if a person chooses to avoid going through all that, by not attending a church [because a pastor that takes "correction" about what he is teaching is extremely rare], then are they still "missing something"? Or do you think they can find fellowship in another way that would encourage others and share the Word?

Yes, they are missing alot. They are missing out on taking responsibility of what God would want them to be doing...working for unity and truth from the inside; where it is needed. Of course they can find fellowship on the outside, that is a no given; but you cannot work for unity from the outside.

It is not a matter of salvation, it is a matter of responsiblity...where did Jesus ever say we can slack of our responsibility? He said; to meet together....and not to be of the mindset of those whom don't...of course if you don't do that; you will still be saved.

My conscience tells me to do what I should.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
No, you do not have to go to church to be saved. I agree with what Lon said, fellowship is important, in and of itself, the physical church is no more than a place of shelter for common fellowship.
 

unknown

New member
kabbalah is not just a quaint little word meaning "received". It means mystical, esoteric teachings that are founded in the Zohar not even compiled and "received" until the 1300s AD!!! the kabbalah is based in the sefirotic tree - a concept that did not exist in the first century.

Can you show me that "Torah" originally meant "enlightenment" - like do you have scholarly source - aka Hebrew scholar language expert, or lexicon/concordance definition?

The Zohar first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de Leon. De Leon ascribed the work to Shimon bar Yochai, a rabbi of the 2nd century during the Roman persecution[3] who, according to Jewish legend,[4][5] hid in a cave for thirteen years studying the Torah and was inspired by the Prophet Elijah to write the Zohar. This accords with the traditional claim by adherents that Kabbalah is the concealed part of the Oral Torah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar

The Zohar is a commentary on Torah, it is in effect, the Jewish oral tradition (a part of Judaism that Christianity ignores) put in writing. (Any one can benefit from this wisdom). It was written after the second destruction of the temple because of a need to retain the tradition after the dispersion of the Jews. It was not revealed to the world until Moses de Leon stumbled across it and still it was not understood. Some said it was madness. The Zohar was not explained in a language understandable to the masses until the mid 20th century. Between the time the book was discovered (13th century) and today was written about it. All of those books are speculation. The man who explained the Zohar in common language did not do so until the mid 20th century. It was not allowed. After Israel became a nation permission was given by the Chief Rabbi to once again to teach Kabbalah (it was forbidden to teach outsiders for 2000 years).

If you think Kabbalah only dates as far back as the 1400s, you have to be mistaken, it is the oral tradition (it is since the beginning). You wrote of seferoit, where does that come from? Abraham wrote in names and seferoit. Read "the book of Creation" attributed to Abraham and see where it comes from. You don't have a clue about real Kabbalah, you have not studied it, you rely on the words of others. Name one thing that real Kabbalah speaks of and we may be able to have a discussion. Until then, you're wastin my time with your speculation. Kabbalah pre-dates all religion but is not a religion itself. It is simply an explanation of what "Torah" is written about.

I won't bother to find any source for the meaning of the word "Torah", you would not consider it authoritative. I will tell you that the Hebrew word for "light" (the main metaphor of Kabbalah) is "ohr" and the word "Torah" is derived from it. The common translation in our time is "instruction".
Is "instruction" not "enlightenment". I know a lot of brains can't make that jump, If yours is one of those, we're done here, you would be a little too far left on the bell curve for me to deal with.

When the bible says "let those with understanding", it means those who have studied Kabbalah and have had the meaning explained to them. You would do well to see what Kabbalah actually says.

I have been studying this for over 2 years now, if you want to discuss it come back after you know what you're talking about.
 

red cardinal

New member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar

The Zohar is a commentary on Torah, it is in effect, the Jewish oral tradition (a part of Judaism that Christianity ignores) put in writing. (Any one can benefit from this wisdom). It was written after the second destruction of the temple because of a need to retain the tradition after the dispersion of the Jews. It was not revealed to the world until Moses de Leon stumbled across it and still it was not understood. Some said it was madness. The Zohar was not explained in a language understandable to the masses until the mid 20th century. Between the time the book was discovered (13th century) and today was written about it. All of those books are speculation. The man who explained the Zohar in common language did not do so until the mid 20th century. It was not allowed. After Israel became a nation permission was given by the Chief Rabbi to once again to teach Kabbalah (it was forbidden to teach outsiders for 2000 years).

From the quote that you provided, Moses De Leon did not "stumble" across it. It was give to him by the prophet Elijah, which makes it suspect - Elijah died 1000s of years ago and if he was talking to DeLeon it is consider necromacy - which we know God hates. The esoteric religions all base their "origins" on a secretive method of understand via "revelations". In Judaism, only men study kabbalah and only after they turn 40 because the study of kabbalah is so intense and hard to understand.

If you think Kabbalah only dates as far back as the 1400s, you have to be mistaken, it is the oral tradition (it is since the beginning). You wrote of seferoit, where does that come from? Abraham wrote in names and seferoit. Read "the book of Creation" attributed to Abraham and see where it comes from. You don't have a clue about real Kabbalah, you have not studied it, you rely on the words of others. Name one thing that real Kabbalah speaks of and we may be able to have a discussion. Until then, you're wastin my time with your speculation. Kabbalah pre-dates all religion but is not a religion itself. It is simply an explanation of what "Torah" is written about.

I did not say that kabbalah dates back only to the 1400s. I said it was not complied, made a religion, the zohar was not written until the 1300s. Up until then there are strands of it, but basically, the Zohar, is the "Holy Book" of kabbalah and without it there is no kabbalah to actually adhere to.

I am not sure how Abraham fits into it other than what the Zohar states, which is not accurate. Again, all information therein comes from a source that is speculative [Elijah appearing] at best. There is no written proof before then. Oral tradition is not reliable. Ever play the telephone game? :chuckle:

I won't bother to find any source for the meaning of the word "Torah", you would not consider it authoritative. I will tell you that the Hebrew word for "light" (the main metaphor of Kabbalah) is "ohr" and the word "Torah" is derived from it. The common translation in our time is "instruction".
Is "instruction" not "enlightenment". I know a lot of brains can't make that jump, If yours is one of those, we're done here, you would be a little too far left on the bell curve for me to deal with.

I looked up Torah in the BDB [Brown Driver Briggs]. The root word of Torah is yara, not ohr.

H8451
תּרה / תּורה
tôrâh
BDB Definition:
1) law, direction, instruction
1a) instruction, direction (human or divine)
1a1) body of prophetic teaching
1a2) instruction in Messianic age
1a3) body of priestly direction or instruction
1a4) body of legal directives
1b) law
1b1) law of the burnt offering
1b2) of special law, codes of law
1c) custom, manner
1d) the Deuteronomic or Mosaic Law
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H3384


H3384
ירא / ירה
yârâh / yârâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to throw, shoot, cast, pour
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to throw, cast
1a2) to cast, lay, set
1a3) to shoot arrows
1a4) to throw water, rain
1b) (Niphal) to be shot
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to throw, cast
1c2) to shoot
1c3) to point out, show
1c4) to direct, teach, instruct
1c5) to throw water, rain
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root


When the bible says "let those with understanding", it means those who have studied Kabbalah and have had the meaning explained to them. You would do well to see what Kabbalah actually says.

I have been studying this for over 2 years now, if you want to discuss it come back after you know what you're talking about.

I have been researching kabbalah for over 10 years. The Bible has nothing to with kabbalah, and here is why. kabbalah uses the shekinah which is the feminine presence of God. God is not a she :) kabbalah also defines the Holy Spirit as the "Mother Spirit" - again, no where in the Bible is the Holy Spirit referred to as a "she". So these concepts, not shown in the Hebrew Scriptures, were added at some point. They are not part of the OT as far back as we have a record for.

kabbalah is mysticism, magic and part of the occult - they are the base of the Golden Dawn, illuminati, Rosicrucian, Knights Templar, Free-Masonry, Mormanism, and other such religions which are not accepted as being Biblical, and which are not exactly real high on God's list - it's actually a big no-no as far as He is concerned :eek:
 

red cardinal

New member
Yes, they are missing alot. They are missing out on taking responsibility of what God would want them to be doing...working for unity and truth from the inside; where it is needed. Of course they can find fellowship on the outside, that is a no given; but you cannot work for unity from the outside.

It is not a matter of salvation, it is a matter of responsiblity...where did Jesus ever say we can slack of our responsibility? He said; to meet together....and not to be of the mindset of those whom don't...of course if you don't do that; you will still be saved.

My conscience tells me to do what I should.

I am not sure what someone would miss by not going to church. If we have the Bible [Truth], people to talk to about His Word [Unity], a mass of people in the world all needing a believer to speak to them of Christ, share His love, etc, then how does the church [organized] fit into this scenario? Most churches are internalized not externalized - some would say that makes them social clubs for entertainment value :shocked:

Jesus said, where 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name, He is there :idea:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top