What you want to know about Christ.

I think it's nice that "Christians" readily call themselves by that name, but can this practice really be supported by the Bible? No kidding, I know that the book of Acts reports that Christians were first called such at Antioch, but there is no instruction for "born-agains" to therefore wear that particular label, at least none that I can recall of that reading or elsewhere in the Book--is there? This may seem to you an insignificant issue, but to me it is actually more "unscriptural" than not, since "born-agains" ARE instructed in 1st Corinthians (and, admittedly, I'm paraphrasing somewhat) not to be "of Paul", "of Apollos", "of Cephas", and, most strikingly, it seems, "of Christ." The name "Christian" and being "of Christ" are pretty saying much one and the same thing, IMHO. Or maybe my recollection of the passage in Acts is faulty. How about it?

brennakimi,
Perhaps so, but on the other hand, one seldom hears, say, a Baptist running around proclaiming with whiney voice, "I'm a Baptist! I'm a Baptist!" to just about anyone who'll listen. Not so with those who so readily call themselves Christians, though, I'm afraid. Just an observation on my part--sorry if that may offend some.

sure sounds like it to me, ringo. Paul is exactly complaining that there are divisions between those calling themselves, in effect, Paulines, Apollosines, Cephasites, and Christians, or whatever you may wish to call them, all within the same body of believers. Later on, he concludes: "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." Nowhere within the passage (1Cor, chapter 1)does he say, "Therefore let everyone declare himself to be "of Christ" for the sake of unity, or whatever; on the contrary, he simply focuses on the power of the preaching of the cross. In other words, he concentrates on "what we should do" and turns away from "who we are" as the operative question of the hour. I submit that the situation today is unchanged, since so many "born-agains" are hung up on "who they are," namely, "Christians," and far less interested in "what they ought to be be doing," namely, "preaching Christ and him crucified."

ringo, the quote is "let him glory in the Lord"...not "let him call himself a christian," nor does the one imply the other by any stretch. That is why I referred to this verse: glorying in the Lord is yet another example of what we ought to do, as opposed to how we may choose to identify ourselves, which IMHO is more toward glorifying ourselves than glorifying the Lord. Therefore, my point remains that it is not "what" one ought to call himself/herself, but rather that one ought to shun the label itself in prefernce to getting about the actual business of doing, which, BTW I contend still (despite your admonishment), is in "preaching Christ and him crucified," according to the text. I really don't care to debate the merits of "preaching" vs. "doing," however, because I appreciate what you may mean when you say that what they ought to be doing is doing as opposed to "merely" preaching. We might simply agree to disagree on that point, otherwise we'd be apt to fall into a general debate over what the term "gospel" means, etc. Thanks for the reply.

BTW, I ought to have reiterated in my previous post that it is the 1st chapter of 1Corinthians to which I refer, and not to the text that you posted, i.e. 1Co 3:21-23, for sake of clarity; Sorry.

denominationalism is what it is. My point is that perhaps those of us who identify ourselves as "christians" have virtually no charter, biblically speaking, to do so, and that therefore perhaps we oughtn't be so quick to label ourselves that way. Just food for thought perhaps, or maybe more than that, I don't know. I do know that we poor humans often stray, and presumably we sometimes get ourselves far afield that way without even realizing it. Sorry for the late reply, brennakimi--my computer is lagging on me for some reason tonight. Peace and like that be to you.

I'd rather not stir the pot on this, ringo, but I respectfully must disagree that I'm "embellishing the text." Your interpretation of the 1Co 1:12 text obviously differs from mine. That much is clear. Again, what is striking to me is that "of Christ" is included in the list of the contentious elements of the group. Those "of Christ" simply are not given any preferential treatment, as one might expect. I submit that this can only mean that when one purports to be "of Christ," this is at best a potentially hazardous presumption, and therefore of dubious merit. Furthermore, Paul makes no ensuing effort to amend the text to be more amiable toward those claiming to be "of Christ." Moreover, I myself find nothing as yet, biblically speaking, that enjoins anyone to take on the name "Christian." Finally, IMO, you are merely splitting hairs between "shunning a label" and "not taking on a label." Personally I fail to see the need for such a minor distinction to be drawn, unless only for the sake of being a bit contentious, for contentiousness sake, perhaps. Be that as it may, it matters little. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Well, ringo, we can all engage in splitting hairs, but what's the point of it? Example: I might say to you, "there's a difference between 'splitting hairs' and 'not letting something go unexamined'--but what's the point? This nattering gets boring after a while. Sure, you may decide to declare victory after a fashion, but so what? I really and truly could care less about that. I'm interested in more quality of conversation thatn that, frankly, and you might well get used to that from me as well, I suppose. That's just the way it is.

BTW, ringo, I might have inserted a smiley face at the end of my last post, but I prefer expressing myself directly in words whenever possible. But thtat's just me. Cheers.

Ohmagosh, ringo, you just keep layin it down now for us, don't you. I never said you had declared any victory, I only suggested the distinct possibility--let's say the strong probability--that someone of your bent eventually resorts to such tactics, based upon your rather obvious, pathetic need to impress someone, I suppose. You're that predictable, I'm afraid. You are also more than a bit presumptuous, I dare say, and no doubt quite cantankerous as well--and, yes, let's let the readers of this "exchange of ideas" decide for themselves if perhaps I may exaggerate too much. (On the positive side, your face'd probably launch a thousand covered wagons, if only it were truly yours, my dear (man?)). Seriously, my first impression of you is that you are much too preoccupied with silly nitpicking and gamesmanship than to ever engage someone, particularly someone new to the forum, in any serious substantive discussion. Why is that, ringo... are you really that much superior or something? Of course not, yet you continue accusing me of precisely those things you do yourself. Are you even aware of these tendencies? Suggestion: Try exercising a little more kindness, if you please. That'll help the musturd go down. Bye bye..

Well, ringo, my friend, I suppose I've probably gone and infracted them rules already on this here forum by calling a spade a spade, but perhaps a poor newbie like me can find a bit o' grace owing to the goading he received tonight, ostensibly by some inveterate cowgal with a knockout face and 4685 posts under her belt (or else more'n likely some stumblebum dude with a three-day growth and, well, oh, nevermind...). You win, ringo, you dastardly dingo, whoever you may be....arrghhhh! (And, fade to black...)

hey, okay, adminphat, thanks for that. I had read the manual actually, but admit to losing it and going off on ringo at a point. Sorry for the transgression that way. In retrospect, I suppose I ought to have been more self-disciplined in handling what I perceived as unnecessary badgering on ringo's part. I was clearly in error in taking the tactless route and going ad hominem..

apologies to you also, ringo. you didn't deserve my trirade last night. it was certainly a breach of etiquette on my part, but also, and more importantly, it was overly critical to the point of abusive. that's not what i care to be doing--i'll sooner take my dozen or so posts and head outta Dodge.