That Jesus Ad

[Jeremiah Branch]

To comment more directly on this campaign, it's just the most recent iteration of the whole "we gotta make Christianity RELEVANT!" impulse in evangelicalism that's been going on for decades. The whole idea is that Modern Culture is the standard and Christianity is lagging behind and outmoded, and must be "updated" or otherwise presented in some sort of "hip" way going forward. Christianity just has to sail along with the prevailing cultural winds, or it'll be left behind.

There's rarely much challenge to the basic presuppositions of this way of thinking, but it immediately falls apart under scrutiny. Ask, why does Christianity need to be "relevant"? When, before the modern times of the last 150 years or so, if we're being generous, were Christians ever concerned with keeping up with the standards of the surrounding (pagan) culture? In fact, history shows the exact opposite. Our job is to firmly plant our feet upon the rock and invite others to join, without compromising in pursuit of that goal. Something I appreciate about being an Orthodox Christian is that my Church does an excellent job doing just that, and somewhat counterintuitively, is drawing a massive amount of inquirers tired of being pandered to.

"Relevant" Christianity is just "missionary dating" on a societal level. You think you're going to convert that hot girl to Christianity, but actually, she just ends up getting you to compromise and sell out your convictions for some carnal fulfillment. And that's exactly what we've seen with this whole experiment in western Christianity where there are a lot of cozy full-time jobs and big salaries riding on treating Christianity like a business that must update its marketing to increase sales. When Jesus is just another brand, this sort of campaign is the inevitable result.

I think this kind of campaign is also indicative of "lowest common denominator" Christianity. There's probably a board of guys in skinny jeans saying "well here's the problem, everyone's turned off Christianity because of all the arguments and debates and different versions, so we gotta reduce it to just JESUS! And not get bogged down in all that other stuff." But that all just raises the question, who's in authority to make that kind of ruling?

What is or isn't essential just comes down to subjective opinion, and maybe who's the most proficient in Scripture-Fu for making a persuasive case. And it doesn't jive with what Jesus Himself or His Apostles taught. If the Church is the body of Christ, then rejecting the Church to "just follow Jesus" is a self-contradictory position, unless you're going to go full Progressive Christian and hand-wave all that stuff about Jesus claiming to be God and whether Christianity is actually true, in favor of saying you like Jesus because he was a great teacher, and at that point CS Lewis is just going to impale you on the Trilemma and my work here is done.

"Relevant Christianity" simply isn't Christianity. It is, in fact, the opposite of Christianity.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:15-17

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2

Could continue to quote Scripture ad nauseum to illustrate the point. This is all so incredibly and mind-numbingly obvious. That a good chunk of what passes for Christianity today is oblivious to this, and in fact preaches the exact opposite of it, is yet another testament to the utter bankruptcy and vacuity of modern forms of "Christianity."

 

[Jeremiah Branch]

"Relevant Christianity" simply isn't Christianity. It is, in fact, the opposite of Christianity.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:15-17

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2

Could continue to quote Scripture ad nauseum to illustrate the point. This is all so incredibly and mind-numbingly obvious. That a good chunk of what passes for Christianity today is oblivious to this, and in fact preaches the exact opposite of it, is yet another testament to the utter bankruptcy and vacuity of modern forms of "Christianity."

"The faithful remnant of Christians in the last days, as our Lord has told us, will be very small; the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians will welcome Antichrist as the Messiah ... those who are not true Orthodox Christians belong to the "new Christianity," the "Christianity" of Antichrist.​

​

“The Pope of Rome and practically everyone else today speaks of "transforming the world" by Christianity: priests and nuns take part in demonstrations for "racial equality" and similar causes. These have nothing to do with Christianity: they do nothing but distract men from their true goal, which is the Kingdom of Heaven.​

​

“The coming age of "peace, "unity," and "brotherhood" if it comes, will be the reign of Antichrist: it will be Christian in name, but Satanic in spirit.​

​

“Everyone today seeks happiness on earth, and they think this is "Christianity"; true Orthodox Christians know that the age of persecutions, which began again under the Bolsheviks, is still with us, and that only by much sorrow and tribulation are we made fit to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."​

— Fr. Seraphim Rose

 

[Samseau]

It's a completely dishonest interpretation of the Bible. Jesus didn't just wash anyone's feet, he was washing his disciples feet, the men who would inherit the 12 thrones of Isreal in the Kingdom of God for eternity. Jesus wasn't the feet of random bums and trannys of the street. Just ridiculous reductio ad absurdum.

Same with Mary being a teen mom, just absurd, Mary was a married woman and getting married in the teenage years was not big deal for thousands of years.

100% Chew, masquerading as Prots, which is why Protestantism is doomed in the long run btw. Not built upon the rock of the Church (i.e. no apostolic succession), so it's doomed to be subverted. I'm impressed with Baptist Churches but I wonder if they will survive the next century.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

100% Chew, masquerading as Prots, which is why Protestantism is doomed in the long run btw. Not built upon the rock of the Church (i.e. no apostolic succession), so it's doomed to be subverted. I'm impressed with Baptist Churches but I wonder if they will survive the next century.

The Rock of the Church is the Word of God. As long as any church faithfully clings to that, they will be preserved from apostasy.

 

[Samseau]

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[b] and on this rock[c] I will build my church, and the powers of death[d] shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.


And the word of God says that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built, and Peter shared his power and responsibilities equally with his brothers (other disciples) because Jesus commanded them to do so. Therefore without apostolic succession, Churches built on sand when the storms come will crash, and mighty will be their fall.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[b] and on this rock[c] I will build my church, and the powers of death[d] shall not prevail against it.

It should be noted that Peter (petro, maculine) is not the same as this rock (petras, feminine). There is a distinction in the Greek language.

The text does not say "you are Peter and on you I will build my church." This is why the Reformers recognized, with many of the Church Fathers, that "this rock" refers to the confession that Peter gave: That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not the man Simon Peter himself.

 

[Samseau]

It should be noted that Peter (petro, maculine) is not the same as this rock (petras, feminine). There is a distinction in the Greek language.

The text does not say "you are Peter and on you I will build my church." This is why the Reformers recognized, with many of the Church Fathers, that "this rock" refers to the confession that Peter gave: That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not the man Simon Peter himself.

He literally said, "You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Jesus was referring to either Peter exclusively, or Peter along with the rest of his brothers. But the meaning of the language is 100% clear.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

He literally said, "You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Jesus was referring to either Peter exclusively, or Peter along with the rest of his brothers. But the meaning of the language is 100% clear.

Here is Augustine:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, “On this rock I will build my Church,” because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.”

And Chrysostom:
“And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession.” “For Christ added nothing more to Peter, but as though his faith were perfect, said, that upon this confession of his He would build the Church...”

 

[Iacobus]

Here is Augustine:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, “On this rock I will build my Church,” because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.”

And Chrysostom:
“And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession.” “For Christ added nothing more to Peter, but as though his faith were perfect, said, that upon this confession of his He would build the Church...”

These are not mutually exclusive interpretations. St. Peter's confession of faith is not identical with St. Peter the man but neither is it separate from him.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

. Peter's confession of faith is not identical with St. Peter the man but neither is it separate from him.

Is Peter's confession (Jesus Christ is the Son of God) exclusive to Peter alone or is that confession held in common by all the Church?

 

[Iacobus]

Is Peter's confession (Jesus Christ is the Son of God) exclusive to Peter alone or is that confession held in common by all the Church?

Not really a sensible question, St. Peter's specific confession, as something that happened in space and time, is exclusive to him as he is the one who said it and no one else. The generalized confession and its meaning is held in common by Christians.

BTW, I am not sure why you are citing Church Fathers in support of your position when you disregard their teachings on countless other aspects of the Church. Surely as a protestant you do not accept them as authorities.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

BTW, I am not sure why you are citing Church Fathers in support of your position when you disregard their teachings on countless other aspects of the Church. Surely as a protestant you do not accept them as authorities.

Patristic study is one of the main causes for the Reformation in the first place. Just as I would find things in them that are disagreeable, so too would you, or any other sect, find things in them that are disagreeable. Why? Because they did not have unanimity on all issues.

I do believe the Church Fathers, as Bishops and Teachers, have authority. But I do not believe they have ultimate authority as that could only be applied to the Word of God alone.

 

[Iacobus]

Patristic study is one of the main causes for the Reformation in the first place. Just as I would find things in them that are disagreeable, so too would you, or any other sect, find things in them that are disagreeable. Why? Because they did not have unanimity on all issues.

I do believe the Church Fathers, as Bishops and Teachers, have authority. But I do not believe they have ultimate authority as that could only be applied to the Word of God alone.

So in other words, you'll quote the Church Fathers when it suits your purposes and disregard them when they don't. I could easily bring in a bunch of citations from Church Fathers who say that Christ is referring to St. Peter as the rock he will build His Church on. But I don't see any point in doing the legwork.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

So in other words, you'll quote the Church Fathers when it suits your purposes and disregard them when they don't.

In this instance, the distinction between Peter (petro) and "this rock" (petras) is so clear in the text, that I don't think patristic citation is needed.

I could easily bring in a bunch of citations from Church Fathers who say that Christ is referring to St. Peter as the rock he will build His Church on. But I don't see any point in doing the legwork.

Would you call this "quoting the Church Fathers when it suits your purposes and disregarding them when they don't?"

 

[Iacobus]

In this instance, the distinction between Peter (petro) and "this rock" (petras) is so clear in the text, that I don't think patristic citation is needed.

You can stop trying to assert that "petro" and "petras" have a different meaning linguistically. Are you unaware that many languages have grammatical structures such as noun gender that require a change in suffix with no change to meaning of the word? It's simply bizarre that you're trying to argue a discontinuity in meaning when it's so clear that by using those two words in quick succession, by going out of his way to allude to the name He gave St. Peter, Christ was demonstrating a continuity in meaning.

Would you call this "quoting the Church Fathers when it suits your purposes and disregarding them when they don't?"

No, I would call it support of my earlier statement that the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

You can stop trying to assert that "petro" and "petras" have a different meaning linguistically.

There is nothing to assert there. It's just a simple feature of the context.

Are you unaware that many languages have grammatical structures such as noun gender that require a change in suffix with no change to meaning of the word?

This could be true here if we were not dealing with names. Does Jesus name Simon Peter or Petras? But if gender nouns weren't enough of a distinction, the mode of address certainly is.

Next, note that when Christ speaks to Peter, He does so in the second person; that is, direct address. Yet, the term “this rock” is third person (indirect address indicated by the use of ταύτη), making the differentiation between “Peter” and “this rock” complete.

Jesus does not say "on you Petro I will build my Church." He says "on this Petras I will build my Church."

 

[Narekatsi]

I think this thread has gone slightly off-topic - nonetheless, it is a very interesting discussion, so I wanted to add my 2 cents.

I'm confident we can all agree that St. Matthew wrote the gospel in Koine Greek and that it was no translation. At the same time, I'm certain we can also establish that Jesus Christ and his disciples conversed in Aramaic. Thus, the word for rock/Peter in both feminine and masculine is the same in Aramaic: "Kepha" (I've also seen it transliterated as "Cephas"). Since it's a single word, the only way to distinguish between "Kepha" the person and "kepha" the statement of faith would be capitalization of the term, something which is not an option in written Aramaic and even more unclear in spoken form.

The fact that St. Matthew went to great length to introduce the Greek wordplay with the masculine and feminine forms of the same term, should tell us something (as in he, and the other disciples understood what Christ was trying to convey in Aramaic). I do agree with the Saints that @GodfatherPartTwo cited, and at the same time, I do not think agreement with that takes away from Apostolic succession of any Apostolic Church.

 

[cheapchampion]

So I keep seeing these "He Gets Us" ads on Reddit, and every time I see it, the most notable thing is that none of the ads ever have any likes or comments. None. It's almost creepy the lack of any feedback on these ads. But there are OTHER reddit pages talking about the "he gets us" ads with tons of activity. So I did a little dive into what it's all about. I'm sure some of these things have been brought up.
Basically, it's just a marketing thing, funded primarily by a few rich guys. The company actually running the ad campaign has changed hands and is presently run by the nonprofit Come Near, run by former Papa Murphy's CEO Ken Calwell.
I read an interview by the Wall Street Journal asking Calwell about the campaign, and he at least straightforward admitted there is no real substance to these ads. It's just marketing.
The judgmental side of me wants to criticize all those millions of dollars doing nothing but getting the name of Jesus out there. Like, forget for a moment the liberal hippie Jesus being pushed - that's secondary to the absence of the gospel. His death, burial and resurrection, and salvation through no other.

But after letting it sit, I actually can see some value in a campaign only really designed to get the name of Jesus out there. It's not something I'd be interested in doing. I like to sink my teeth into what I'm doing, and this is at best surface level. But, while it's hard for many of us to imagine, there are some (very few but still some) who just need to be told about the name of Jesus. There is light even in the name alone. And maybe once it's in their head, they can seek more light. Again, I'm not in love with the campaign, but I'm trying to be very slow to judge and criticize, and at first I really was critical of it. Maybe the intentions of the people involved aren't the best, I don't know, but I can see some value.

 

[scary_robot_music]

But after letting it sit, I actually can see some value in a campaign only really designed to get the name of Jesus out there. It's not something I'd be interested in doing. I like to sink my teeth into what I'm doing, and this is at best surface level. But, while it's hard for many of us to imagine, there are some (very few but still some) who just need to be told about the name of Jesus. There is light even in the name alone. And maybe once it's in their head, they can seek more light. Again, I'm not in love with the campaign, but I'm trying to be very slow to judge and criticize, and at first I really was critical of it. Maybe the intentions of the people involved aren't the best, I don't know, but I can see some value.

I agree. I'm generally terrible at being a Christian, but one of my most shameful fails in this regard in the last several years was a while back when a female coworker admitted to me out of the blue that her marriage was failing. She was in obvious pain about it and asked me for advice, I think because she'd picked up on the fact that my wife and I are very happy together. I was taken off guard and just stammered something weak about how my wife and I are religious and we'd pray for her. What I should have said was that my wife and I have a good marriage because its foundation is based on our belief in Jesus Christ and recommend that she start reading the New Testament and praying and asking herself what Jesus wants her to do.

It still haunts me that I didn't do this. I'm not sure why I didn't, I guess some vague cowardly feeling that I'd get in trouble for directly mentioning Christ at the globohomo corporation where I was working at the time.

 

[cheapchampion]

I agree. I'm generally terrible at being a Christian, but one of my most shameful fails in this regard in the last several years was a while back when a female coworker admitted to me out of the blue that her marriage was failing. She was in obvious pain about it and asked me for advice, I think because she'd picked up on the fact that my wife and I are very happy together. I was taken off guard and just stammered something weak about how my wife and I are religious and we'd pray for her. What I should have said was that my wife and I have a good marriage because its foundation is based on our belief in Jesus Christ and recommend that she start reading the New Testament and praying and asking herself what Jesus wants her to do.

It still haunts me that I didn't do this. I'm not sure why I didn't, I guess some vague cowardly feeling that I'd get in trouble for directly mentioning Christ at the globohomo corporation where I was working at the time.

At the same time, "I'll pray for you" opens the door for someone to ask you about your faith. It's still shining a light imo. Next time she will know you are a person of faith, and as simple as it is, it's big.