[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Which brings me on to my final point. Paul's admonition of the Corinthians in these verses honestly, in my humble opinion, has next to nothing to do with 'nomenclature' or 'denomination'. And it is truly interesting to see how the word 'Denomination', in the LSM culture, was and has been absolutely demonized into a "boogeyman" meant to keep the saints in line. Is Paul really warning the Corinthians never to use 'names'? Such an interpretation is both superficial and preposterous: superficial, as I've shown by my argument above that Paul's polemic implied much deeper issues; and preposterous, as seen in the farce and the fallacy it has exposed in spawning churches whose names are the churches with no names.

The doctrine reflects an ignorance of the origins of nomenclature in general. For example, historically, many people's names indicate either the areas they originally came from, or what their professions were, or whose children they were e.g. MacDonald was the son of Donald; Richardson was the son of Richard; Jamie O'Brien was the son of Brian; Daniel the blacksmith in medieval times became Daniel Smith; John the butcher became John Butcher; And Henry from Sutton gradually became known as Henry Sutton (yes that's right, many people were named after the geographical centers i.e. towns, cities, and districts they hailed from that they might be identified more easily, which is the main function of naming). So, how is it that someone wakes up one day and says because we shall call ourselves just "the church in town A" we, therefore, have no name??? I beg to disagree, sir. That is...your name!!!

I surely agree with this. As someone once said, "Tell me again about that church with no name suing their brothers in court over the rights to a name."

Thanks, Jack. Please write more.