How did Jesus fight the tradition and made the religion more relational?

sndbay

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

***************

New creature has strength in Christ Jesus :
2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Christ dwells within and strength us to avail over satan.
Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.


The body of new creature, divine nature (refer:2 Pet. 1:4) born of the spirit will go to the right side of the boat... (my own metaph speaking)

1 John 2:5-6 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

~in Christ

Tj3

I snipped the rest for brevity ... none of those passages said that baptism in water is essential for salvation.

JoeT777

You guys are hilarious. For nearly 2,000 years ‘Peter’ meant ‘rock’. It meant ‘rock’ from when Christ spoke it till…well, until Scriptures ran into you two wondrous scholars. And now the two of you proclaim ‘Peter’ to be a stone, a pebble, a chip of sandstone, what marvels of scholastic crawfish’en can we expect next? And if Peter were a pebble, then wouldn’t that make it all the more miraculous that Christ established his Universal Kingdom on a small insignificant pebble? Guys, just in case you haven’t heard, this pebble business has been debunked years ago by real scholars who understand the Greek and Aramaic of the day.

Certain beliefs and doctrines were handed to us by the Apostles and their successors. This we call Tradition. That Tradition was memorialized in sacred writings, a compendium of God’s revelation to mankind in 72 books. Authenticated teachings of Christ were bequeathed to posterity by the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church. This is a continuation of God’s Divine laws held in the Tradition of Abram and Mosses; wherein Christ lived and fulfilled its tenets and prophecies.

JoeT

Tj3

Maybe in your circles (though I am not sure how you make the 2000 year claim - since scripture itself says that the meaning is "stone")

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

The claim that your denominational traditions came from the Apostles is, in and of itself, a denominational traditional. Since the denomination came centuries later, it is a creation of men, and the traditions are creations of men.

As for the 6 books added by your denomination, many contradict scripture, and at least one denies divine inspiration.

sndbay

No they don't but each says I follow in Christ, doing the Will of God. God sustains us, and guides us, we are to listen to hear HIS voice.

Remember what was said to Job?


Job 37:14 Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God.
Job 37:15-16 Dost thou know when God disposed them, and caused the light of his cloud to shine? Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?
Job 37:21 And now men see not the bright light which is in the clouds: but the wind passeth, and cleanseth them

Do we fully understand all that God commands of us? Did the people understand their salvation washed over them in the water of the red sea, and baptized them?
(Exd 14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.)

In doing the will of God we exalt His glory and praise. The water in baptism is like the well of salvation in newness of life. God is the well of our salvation in which we draw from. Baptism is what holds us together in good conscience with God and the HIS fire (Luke 12:50)

~in Christ

Tj3

Agreed. Even though baptism is not essential for salvation, it is something that all believers should do as an act of obedience and a testimony of what Christ has done in their lives.

I disagree. It is the word of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that unifies believers. Not water.

JoeT777

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. (Matt 16)

Setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor. You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once, but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.

Simon is used in English, French, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Slovene, Biblical Pronounced: SIE-mən (English), see-MAWN (French), ZEE-mawn (German) [key] From the Greek form of the Hebrew name שִׁמְעוֹן (Shim'on) which meant "he has heard". This was the name of several biblical characters, including the man who carried the cross for Jesus. However, the most important person of this name in the New Testament was the apostle Simon, also known as Peter (a name given to him by Jesus). Because of him, this name has been common in the Christian world. In England it was popular during the Middle Ages, though it became rarer after the Protestant Reformation. Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Simon

And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There is a significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. It's used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women ...And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once here in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV also) It no little significance that like the blessing bestowed Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI.

Are we to assume that Peter didn’t know of this? Are we to assume that this blessing made to Mary, the “handmaid” of God, would not in the same sense make Peter, the primary servant of Christ? And what significance are we to make of this blessing that came out of Christ’s own mouth? That this was just some utterance, a use of metaphors, a courteous remark? Would it not be safe to assume that who Christ blesses stays blessed? How does our eye pass so freely across the words “blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona” without stopping to wonder at the significance that's found nowhere else in the New Testament? Peter is the only one in history blessed by Christ himself? The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, we share that blessing. Peter was our first Vicar. By making ourselves “servants” of the Church, we in turn make ourselves, subjects of the Church whose head is the vicar (earthly representative) of Christ; and as such sharing in that one and only blessing uttered by Christ.

Because this was revealed to Peter by God, Christ calsl Peter a rock and on this Rock Christ built His church; hell won’t prevail against it, not even TJ.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of the keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135.


Insofar as I’m able to discern, based on the knowledge of those fluent in Greek and Latin, the differences between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims are not major. Only a few verses in the KJV give a different understanding. My reason for mentioning the Scriptural differences, as elsewhere in my responses, of cases referring to Christ as a Rock is related to his strength. Furthermore, when compared with a Rock it referrers to Christ’s founding of doctrinal precepts; as it where knowledge pouring forth baptismal waters from Christ’s strength refreshing the people of Israel, e.g., Exodus 17:5 And the Lord said to Moses: Go before the people, and take with thee of the ancients of Israel: and take in thy hand the rod wherewith thou didst strike the river, and go. 6 Behold I will stand there before thee, upon the rock Horeb, and thou shalt strike the rock, and water shall come out of it that the people may drink. This doctrinal foundation is shown in 1 Cor 3:11-12 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. NKJV

The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”

We Catholics find that "This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Genitum, 8)

Like Sndbay I also think there is a significance in names. Seeing that Simon has the Hebrew meaning, “he has heard” with the surname meaning “dove”, which in most cultures nuances of peace, Matthew 16:17 takes a special significance. Christ calls the son of peace who has heard the son of the living God a rock. Peter is made the living foundation (or cornerstone if you prefer that metaphor) of the Church. Even the location can’t be discounted; Caesarea Philippi is a region that has a large rock outcrop that forms a cliff. Christ’s intent is clear and his words have faithfully survived in His Bride for 2,000 years.

But, where do you think “Protestantism” came from? Where did each of the 30,000 different Christian Denominations get their Scriptures, each insisting it has the one and only one authoritative interpretation? How do they recon Christ’s words, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. ” (Cf. John 17). How then do you suppose those 30,000 interpret this, “I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” (Cf. John 6). How then would you suggest that those 30,000 different Churches are One Church as Christ prayed “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me.” (John 17:20)

It’s not just a little significant that the didactic narrative of Matthew 16:5 is a prelude; “And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread. Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matt 16:5). Christ reminds them of the two substances that give life, the waters of baptism and the bread of life (Cf. John 6:48); likewise crossing over these waters leads to leavened faith.


JoeT

Tj3

It is of little value to go through everything in this detail, but I will add a few comments

If you think that Peter is an uncommon or less common name today, where are you living? Your source of this information is inaccurate at best.

Really? Where is this "special chair" mentioned in scripture?

Where is this in scripture?

Vicar means substitute. Peter, according to this tradition (note: not scripture, but tradition) is a substitute for Christ.

Since scripture itself tells us that Peter was a stone, and Christ was the rock, and Paul says that Christ is the only true foundation of the church, this claim is false. Jesus did not found a denomination.

Jesus still has the keys in the book of Revelation. Those are not the keys given to Peter, nor did He give keys specifically to Peter.

Exactly - a Roman Catholic denominational teaching, not scriptural.

I am not a protestant, but I can say from my knowledge and research into various protestant denominations that, although some are like the Roman catholic church in that they claim they alone have the only right interpretation, that is certainly not the case with most, nor is it true of most other non-Catholic churches whether they are protestant or not.

Tj3

I find it sad that there are those who engage in denominationalism, who say that their denomination is the only right one. Paul spoke against that quite directly, because even back in the first century, there were those who claimed that the were under one or another of the Apostles (and yes, Peter was one mentioned specifically by Paul)

1 Cor 1:11-14
11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
NKJV

There is nothing wrong with denominations, but when the denomination (any denomination) cease to be just a tool for us to use to evangelize and to encourage fellowship amongst believers, and changes to become the master, then we have a problem.

JoeT777

That's correct, there is but one Church, the church you know as Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ. Christ didn't make subdivisions (denominations) of His Church.

JoeT