1 Corinthians (various passages) - Paul is not a happy apostle

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Yes ideas of all sorts cause division.

I have been thinking about eloquent wisdom as Paul described it (i.e. what he did not possess.)

Do we give too much creedence to eloquent wisdom? Do we overlook quiet wisdom?
 
Yes ideas of all sorts cause division.

I have been thinking about eloquent wisdom as Paul described it (i.e. what he did not possess.)

Do we give too much creedence to eloquent wisdom? Do we overlook quiet wisdom?


All is displaced silently in the mute dark Ness ... like blackwater ... in NB it is the Nashwaac! The darker whey ... something to look into for no reason just curios ...
 
If a person says agnosticism is wishy washy, treat the person with respect in how we respond to the claim.
 
Chloe's household slaves ("Chloe's people"--1:11) have sent word to Paul about various divisions that have infected the church of Corinth. One serious division has been created by hard feelings arising from neglect of the Christian poor and slaves at the potluck agape feasts (11:21-22). The wealthier members don't share their food and wine with those who have nothing to bring, who remain hungry and humiliated by a feast that is bracketed by Communion bread and wine that are supposed to symbolize the loving unity of the corporate Body of Christ. The wealthier members prefer to get drunk rather than share their wine and other food with the poor and slaves. By desecrating the bread and the Cup that this love feast is supposed to celebrate, they are "as answerable for the body and blood of the Lord (11:27)" as those who crucified Jesus! As a result, "they eat and drink judgment against themselves 911:29)."

"For this reason, many of you are weak and ill, and some have died (11:30)."

Thus, Paul transforms Holy Communion into a radical symbol of the social equality of the rich and poor.
 
Chloe was at one time something to do with time ... it passed as Timaeus and the stoic never noticed it going!

Nothing left but the fabric, Floe! Presents as a robe in literature ... often dark and flowing and questioned by the illuminated ... the light?

Under which one might find a hole to take roots ...
 
Chloe is a common Greek name. All modern women named Chloe probably ultimately derive this name from this Corinthian Chloe, just as modern women named Lydia probably ultimately derive their name from Paul's first European convert, a wealthy purple dye merchant named Lydia from Thyatira. I had the privilege of visiting the traditional exact spot on the Gangites River near Philippi where Paul baptized her. There is a beautiful little chapel by the spot in her honor and 4 elevated rows of seating to meditate on the significance of this first European convert.
 
Chloe is only mentioned by name in the Bible on this one occasion. Kind of interesting.

Paul seems to.have taken her comments very seriously
 
When I read about some of the unity issues in the early church, I definitely relate it to what I see today. And I am not so naïve as to believe it is just a today-problem. I think that is why we have so many different denominations, as well as people that claim to be Christian but choose not to attend church. In my own church, and in my own home town, there are definite efforts made to be welcoming, united, cooperative with one another, and accepting of others. There is a sense that that is a main goal, but we need a Paul to guide us. In person, because apparently the Biblical version isn't working too well. We have splintered into too many small congregations that have a hard time maintaining vitality. We sometimes act like a 'club'; and sometimes we don't do the work of caring for others. Sometimes we aren't even valuing worship enough. And often there are expectations being made of the church and the minister that are not or cannot be met. The early church had different influences undermining it; but the outcome is the same. Interestingly, they made it from there to here....It didn't signal their demise. Those early leaders were amazing.
 
Useful Charts, a Youtube channel run by a guy with an RS doctorate, is starting a 3 part series on the family tree of Christianity. And even in the first episode, you see how quickly splits over mostly points of faith or theology began to pop up. You have the Pauline, Gnostic, and Jewish branches in the early days. Then you have the Nestorian Church of the East branching off. Then you have the big split after Chalcedon that led to the Chalcedonian and Oriental branches (that split was over whether Jesus had one essence that mixed human and divine or separate human and divine essences). Chalcedonian is the branch that include RC, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches. Oriental are the Coptic, Syriac, and a smattering of other Middle and Near Eastern churches. Part 2 will deal with the RC - Eastern Orthodox split and the various churches under those branches, part 3 will deal with the Reformation and the myriad Protestant denominations (presumably at a high level given how many there are).


So whatever efforts Paul may have made around Christian unity in the early days, it's a horse that has very much left the barn today. I think that as long as Christians are not at each other's throats, we may need to be happy with that. If people of different denominations and branches are able to work together towards common goals, even better. But that's probably as far as "unity" is likely to go, especially with some groups in the faith still insisting on espousing outdated, and even hateful, social values around women, LGBTQ, racism, etc.

But, I will say that putting "I am a follower of Christ" (or maybe "God") before "I am a follower/member of xxxxx church/denomination/school of theology" probably helps.:giggle:
 
Paul's advice was pretty simple when you think about it. Not always easy to follow but not hard to understand.

Remember that you belong to Christ, not to the leader of any movement in the church. Be generous with each other and behave with decorum.

And about those spiritual gifts? None is more valuable than the other. All are given for the good of the whole.
 
And about those spiritual gifts? None is more valuable than the other. All are given for the good of the whole.
And, as Paul says in 1 Cor 13, none matters if not wielded with love.
If I speak in the tongues of humans and of angels but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions and if I hand over my body so that I may boast[a] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
 
Other world faiths have divisions, too, but not to the extent we do. Islam and Judaism only have a few major ones.

Harold Kushner wrote in one of his books that no other world religion emphasizes belief to the extent Christianity does.

Does striving for right belief explain all the splintering? It seems to me that issues of church organization and governance have also played a big role.
 
Buddhism seems to have quite a few sects and branches but I am not sure of how many. Have never delved into that, just looked at the major branches. There's a major division between Mahayana and Theravada but then there are quite a few sects within Mahayana (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, and others).

Islam is more divided than I think a lot of us Westerners realize. There's the major division between Shi'a and Sunni, but then you have sects within both like the Wahabis (Sunni) and Ismailis (Shi'a). Again, I haven't gone deep enough to know how many of the smaller sects there are.

I think the oddest one in the Christian world is Protestantism. I mean, you have sects and so-called denominations that consist of just a handful of churches. I can't think of any religious movement as fragmented. And many of the divisions are very much social and political rather than religious. I mean, we see both the Anglican/Episcopal/CoE and the Methodists at risk of splitting over things like women as ministers or same-sex relationships which are very much social issues with religious dimensions rather than the kind of theological hairsplitting that separated RC and Orthodox or Chalcedonian and Oriental.
 
Last edited:
Other world faiths have divisions, too, but not to the extent we do. Islam and Judaism only have a few major ones.

Harold Kushner wrote in one of his books that no other world religion emphasizes belief to the extent Christianity does.

Does striving for right belief explain all the splintering? It seems to me that issues of church organization and governance have also played a big role.
Most religions have a strong emphasis on practice or life style and these tend to promote unity as there are usually real consequences or costs to changing practices. Changing beliefs is relatively cheap in itself on an individual basis. Paul ended up promoting division in his emphasis on beliefs and theology.
 
Most religions have a strong emphasis on practice or life style and these tend to promote unity as there are usually real consequences or costs to changing practices. Changing beliefs is relatively cheap in itself on an individual basis. Paul ended up promoting division in his emphasis on beliefs and theology.
There is much truth in this. For instance, the vast majority of Muslims keep at least the 5 pillars, including daily prayer. That alone means that 5 times a day, they are all doing the same thing (facing Mecca in prayer), even if they are dressed differently and believe different things about the God they are praying to.
 
Everything is dissociated and diemmanated as chloe ... and thus they shoot up as sprouts and divine metaphor ...

It is up to the poor phoque to reassemble ... after being so indeterminate as compared to those that are determined to know the only answers in a spectre ...
 
Jesus intended His messianic claims to be divisive and owned that divisiveness as part of His mission:

"Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division (Luke 12:51)."'J

As a pastor, I found this divisiveness most toxic when I tried to organize an interchurch singles ministry in response to my growing awareness that many single and divorced church women thought predatory bars were their only hope of meeting compatible men. I wanted all the churches to compile a list of their singles with a view to testing the level of interest in such a group for activities such as skiing, hiking, dancing, etc. The idea was quickly rejected on the grounds that I might use such an organization to steal sheep. I protested that I had no need either to lead or host such a group; the group could rotate meeting locales or meet in a secular facility. I just wanted such a group to be available to expand social opportunities for church singles. But the fear of sheep stealing proved the decisive factor that precluded any such cooperative venture.
 
Back
Top