What you want to know about Christ.

No, THIS is what she said. Note the lack of the word "Church," or any mention of "300 years."

quote:

---

It is also great evidence that myth changes as the needs of the religion change.

​

John is very different in character than the other three Gospels. All the talk of a literal, in-the-flesh, very, very soon Second Coming present in the others is downplayed in John. Jesus's gift to us was changed into a spiritual, symbolic rebirth rather than the military victory of the rest of the Gospels.

​

That's why the timing of the crucifiction was changed. Jesus becomes the symbolic "sacrificial Passover lamb" for all of humanity.

---

The book of John is so entirely different in character to the other three Gospels as to suggest that the author had some very different beliefs, and individual details were added/changed to support the emerging doctrine.As the Christian religion formed and grew into more than a tiny cult, different schools of thought sprouted up (such as the Gnostics, for example). In other words, differences in texts appeared becasue of doctrinal differences. The determination of which set of beliefs would be the "official" one was not decided until much later (such that it was), and thus there were several competing systems of beliefs.Clearly, your statement: is false.

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.

in that same post, she said. and then went to discuss how the new fangled doctrine led to new gospels. clearly. no. it wasn't new. it was contemporary.

maybe not, but you very often hear people who identify by their denomination claiming that other denominations are fronts for satan.

quote:

---

1Co 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
1Co 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Co 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

---

I don't see it saying we shouldn't be "of Christ".

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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."

You quoted it yourself: "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.", not "glory in the cross."Paul was telling the Corinthians (and by extension, us) not to follow Paul or Apollos or Cephas, but to follow Christ. Hence, we should not call ourselves Paulines, Apollosines, Cephasites or Crucians - but Christians. I agree with that. What they ought to be doing is doing, not preaching.But this topic was intended for gen to enlighten us, not for me to enlighten you.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

There's a difference between right labels and wrong labels. Paul was pointing out that wrong labels like "Pauline", "Apollosine" and "Cephasite" indicate wrong thinking.There's also a difference between not labelling oneself and "shunning the label". I only pointed out that you are embellishing the text.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

They certainly are.

quote:

---

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

---

Christ was crucified for you and ye are bapized in the name of Christ. The name of Christ most definitely is singled out from the list. I agree, but "potentially hazardous" and "of dubious merit" are not the same as shunning the label. It's good to be humble but going too far in the shunning direction can amount to denying Christ. Nor does he need to. He is only eliminating those we should not follow. Neither do I. I'm not saying we should take the name "Christian". (If you read a few thousand of my posts, you'll find that I don't.) I'm saying that we shouldn't shun it either, like Peter did. Get used to it. This isn't choir practise. Don't expect anything you say here to go unexamined.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.