Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

  • Thread starter Thread starter mfbukowski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”

Jesus was saying that resurrected people (angels) in heaven will be androgynous, no longer distinguished by sex. I hear Mormons understand this differently.

Matthew 22:31 “But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

God is for living people. He is not the God of the dead. Therefore there is no need to baptize the dead.
 
bukowski, was there ever a time, OT or NT, that what you call ordinances were instructed, by God, to be performed for the souls of the dead? Cirumcision? Offerings? Marriage? Anything?
 
I don’t know why you think this.

So you think your church does NOT have the power to preach to the dead, or what exactly are you saying? Why would he not have the keys?

I believe he did and the priesthood does have the keys.

MAYBE THIS HAS BEEN THE ISSUE ALL ALONG??

But that is my earlier point- to me that would prove the apostasy since I think that Jesus is making that statement - that the church has the keys to the gates of hell, so they cannot prevail against it.

No keys to hell, No true church.

Even from your point of view, how could the church withstand an attack from hell if you did not have the keys to do so?
Please tell me where Christ said he gave the keys to hell, or tell me where the keys to hell is even spoken of. He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

**Mat 16:18 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.
Mat 16:19 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. **
 
hes talking about a different church than you realize, one not made from brick and mortar. He is talking about The church in relation to the body of Christ (fellow believers) the problem is that the actual church is ridiculously small because everyone (protestants, catholics, etc.) is divided and wants to be individualistic. For instance whens the last time most of you had true fellowship with brethren? That was the only thing I was once used to, then I realized that we are all the church and we are meant to come together as one body and fellowship, and not go to some dead service that makes you fall asleep, go to service on sunday to help you stay current, so that you can actually be a church or minister
 
AMAZING: Changing names is a very big significance with God. Jesus renames Simon “Rock” and in the very same sentence says to Simon -the Rock- that “upon this Rock I will build my Church,” and someone will submit that Christ did not build His Church upon Simon the Rock. That is amazing to me.
 
Simon Arizona - do you know greek? look up Peter and The Rock, Peter would be Petros meaning a small pebble and the rock would be Petras - a massive bedrock like substructure. Which would show that on Peters confession (or ours) we are apart of the body of Christ. all pebbles but together we make up the large rock or body of Christ
 
Simon Arizona - do you know greek? look up Peter and The Rock, Peter would be Petros meaning a small pebble and the rock would be Petras - a massive bedrock like substructure. Which would show that on Peters confession (or ours) we are apart of the body of Christ. all pebbles but together we make up the large rock or body of Christ
Don’t you know Greek? nouns have gender. For Jesus to call Peter “Petras” would be for him to call him a woman. Not a very good thing to do. Would Jesus call him Petrina? Little Girl Peter? Besides, if you knew Bible History, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, in this passage. He would have called him Kepha and the word for rock was Kepha.
 
Simon Arizona - do you know greek? look up Peter and The Rock, Peter would be Petros meaning a small pebble and the rock would be Petras - a massive bedrock like substructure. Which would show that on Peters confession (or ours) we are apart of the body of Christ. all pebbles but together we make up the large rock or body of Christ
I previously posted an explanation of the translations, as well as the location the , on this thread. I am reposting it below, since you brought it up again.

We all are a part of the body of Christ, Peter however was given authority over the Church. How else can you reconcile the giving of the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the binding and loosing on earth statements by our Lord?

Mat 16:19 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.

Christ spoke Aramaic. He called Simon, Kephas, which is rock.

Kēphas
kay-fas’
Of Chaldee origin; the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.


One of the primary Greek translations was lithos.

λίθος
lithos
lee’-thos
Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively): - (mill-, stumbling-) stone.


Christ meant more than stone, according to the authors of the Bible. The Greek language has two translations for rock, one masculine and one feminine. The feminine, is Petra, the masculine is Petros.

**πέτρα
petra
pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

Πέτρος
Petros
pet’-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock; as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock.**

The author(s) of the New Testament did not call Peter by a feminine name. They did, however, use the masculine, which was the primary word in the Greek translation. The purpose was not to downsize Peter’s role in the Church, nor was it meant to be a “chip off the ole block”. It was to address Peter in the masculine. One could argue that Peter was a “piece” of rock. Christ was the foundation “rock”, which he made Peter a part of.

The location the Lord chose to re-name Peter was as significant as the re-naming itself. Just as the Lord explained parables to the Apostles, he used locations to impress what he was saying to them. Caesari Phillipi was originally Panion, the city of Pan…dedicated to the Greek god Pan.
Pan (Greek Πάν, genitive Πανός) is the Greek god of shepherds and flocks, of mountain wilds, hunting and rustic music: paein means to pasture.
I’m providing below, an explanation that was provided to me from a friend, who has given me permission to use it.
The mountain where Christ was transfigured was above the spot where there remains, to this day, a site honoring Pan, who was, at that time, considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. Pan’s essence was sexual and leaned toward depravity, i.e., to Christians, it represents the power of evil. (Remember that with the exchange immediately following Christ’s proclamation!) The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs.
Why this spot? Why, of all the places to which Jesus journeyed, would he choose (and don’t think it wasn’t chosen!) a place so antithetical to the Kingdom of God? Obviously, because Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom. And even the gates of hell (a site so named in a niche in the same mountain, which some claim to be the “abyss”) will not prevail over that Kingdom!
But the Kingdom is to be established in the “now” of time, in order for man to live a life of genuine holiness through which he may enter into the eternal Kingdom. Hence, a kingdom needs a King – the King of Kings. However, when the King, established by God through David, is absent from the physical kingdom, it cannot be left unattended. Hence, the keeper of the keys, the “prime minister” or “vicar”, is charged with the full authority of the king over all his lands, peoples, and possessions. He can make law or repeal it. He can make any decisions the King would make. And he is responsible to the King for every action he takes.
The “short” form of my position on Matthew 16:
  1. The “petros/petra” issue would not have occurred, since Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, wherein there is ONE word form: Kepha.
  1. A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.
  1. The keeper of the keys is not simply noted in Isaiah. 1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys. The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.
  1. The throne of David was considered by Jews to be the throne of God. (Ref. 1Chron 23:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.
  1. The keeper of the keys is, therefore, the Lord’s vicar, who occupies the earthly throne until Christ returns.
 
You’re right about that. There have been some nasty popes and priests. (probably some nasty Mormon prophets too!)

But what do you mean it’s all conditional? Conditional how?
We have a doctrine of the “holy spirit of promise”. It is the job of the holy spirit to somehow certify all ordinances so that if the individual is lying etc. the ordinance is not valid. It is somewhat like your “invincible ignorance” – in some respects. What we do wrong in ordinances in good faith, the Lord “fixes”. So if you are a murderer and lie, and get baptized, or someone baptizes you by proxy, and it is done it good faith by the individual who does it, the ordinance would be made invalid by God.

Also people get upset about us “baptizing their relatives as Mormons”. That can’t happen. If the individual being baptized rejects the baptism, (on the other side) that’s their option.

So it’s all “conditional” on 1- their acceptance of the ordinance and 2- God’s acceptance of the ordinance.

Oh- we use the word “ordinance” about the same as you use “sacrament”
 
We have a doctrine of the “holy spirit of promise”. It is the job of the holy spirit to somehow certify all ordinances so that if the individual is lying etc. the ordinance is not valid. It is somewhat like your “invincible ignorance” – in some respects. What we do wrong in ordinances in good faith, the Lord “fixes”. So if you are a murderer and lie, and get baptized, or someone baptizes you by proxy, and it is done it good faith by the individual who does it, the ordinance would be made invalid by God.

Also people get upset about us “baptizing their relatives as Mormons”. That can’t happen. If the individual being baptized rejects the baptism, (on the other side) that’s their option.

So it’s all “conditional” on 1- their acceptance of the ordinance and 2- God’s acceptance of the ordinance.

Oh- we use the word “ordinance” about the same as you use “sacrament”
Thanks, I wondered about the fact that some people might not want to be baptised Mormon after they were dead, it’s nice to hear they have a choice on the other side!

Truthfully though, I don’t think people really need help after they are dead. Though I am Catholic, (I admit - a bit of a cafeteria Catholic) I don’t really think the dead can be influenced by the living. I really think you get what’s coming to you after you die. You have this life to get it right.

God is for the living. We can choose to believe in and honor and obey Him in this life - or not. God gives us the choice to do that. After we die, we go to heaven or hell or purgatory. Purgatory is where God refines the souls of those who have no mortal sins on their souls, but aren’t quite ready for heaven (probably most of the people). But the dead are in God’s hands at that point. The living can remember their dead ones, but not influence them. Anyway, that’s how I see it.
 
Well let me rephrase that, Joseph Smith made stuff up. I know this is mormon theology, it is made up. It is not taught anywhere else but your mormon church. It was not taught by the Apostles. It was not taught in the early Church. It has never been taught, EVER. Until Joseph Smith came along.

It is not a restoration, it is an invention.

and how about your not take scripture verses out of context?

18 For Christ also suffered 5 for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. 19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 6 20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. 21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Peter was talking about a very select group of people, those who were not saved by the Old Covenant. It says NOTHING about proxy baptisms. And no where does Jesus or an Apostle teach that baptisms for the dead SHOULD be performed. Let alone that it is necessary.
Rebecca Rebecca. I know you are a sincere seeker of truth because I have felt your spirit. But if I had not known that at this point I would think you have gone for the dark side. It seems like you are deliberately distorting here.

First, I cited two verses. Maybe that was not clear from the way the citation was made. Your point about baptism is a distortion of the verse. YES it is talking about those who were saved in Noah’s time. But the line about baptism is totally about something else.

I’ll even use your translation:

“20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. 21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

WHAT is the “THIS” which prefigured baptism?

The ark, in which people were saved BY WATER

This has nothing to do with work for the dead, but it is about baptism

I cited the scripture to show that the gospel was preached to the dead. You have correctly pointed out that the scripture is about those who died in old testament times. BUT IT STILL SHOWS THAT THE GOSPEL WAS PREACHED TO THE DEAD and your emphasis of the baptism part has nothing to do with that.

Secondly, I posted another reference, which is in the chapter following this one, 1 Peter 4.

I will use your translation, which I think is clearer than the KJV:

**1 Peter
Chapter 4
1
1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same attitude (for whoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin),
2
so as not to spend what remains of one’s life in the flesh on human desires, but on the will of God.
3
For the time that has passed is sufficient for doing what the Gentiles like to do: living in debauchery, evil desires, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, and wanton idolatry.
4
They are surprised that you do not plunge into the same swamp of profligacy, and they vilify you;
5
but they will give an account to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead.
6
For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead 2 that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God. **

Note verse 6: For this is why the gospel was PREACHED TO THE DEAD 2

See that foot note 2?

If you go to that footnote IN YOUR BIBLE it says the following:

2 [6] The dead: these may be the sinners of the flood generation who are possibly referred to in 1 Peter 3:19. But many scholars think that there is no connection between these two verses, and that the dead here are Christians who have died since hearing the preaching of the gospel.

usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter4.htm#foot2

The gospel was preached to the dead, despite the gates of hades, which did not prevail against the church preaching the gospel there. Even though much has been lost from the bible there are still hints of the truth that did not get removed.

Even though, as you point out incessantly, it is a “Catholic Book”

Another fragment is 1 Corinthians 15:29:

29
13 14 Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

I like your translation better than ours. Go ahead and look at your own foot notes too. It says that Paul is listing “logical inconsistencies” in #13, but I don’t see any in the text.

This of course is a fragment of a fractured bible which shows that there were ordinances performed for the dead as well.

The gospel was preached to the dead, and the gates of hades did not prevail against the church doing so.
 
Christ defeated Satan. He is condemned.

Death and sin cannot defeat Christ’s Church as Christ has defeated both, forever, and always. To believe otherwise is to believe that Jesus did not die, that He has not risen, and that He will not come again.

The Church is led by Christ. He is our eternal High Priest. Our King. We, and you, by virtue of our baptisms are the body of the Church. Just as death and sin cannot defeat us, so to does the Church withstand both.

We, individually, seek to follow Jesus. By His sacrifice and grace we are free from the bonds of sin and death. The Church is Christ and we are the Church and so we are His. We are one. You cannot say we are defeated. Even if we choose sin and wander, we belong to God, and God forgives us. Even if the Church itself wanders, it belongs to God, and God guides His Church and leads her to where she should be.

What you are proposing is that none of this is Truth.
No! I agree with you!

But what about those who were NOT baptised here in this life?

“incincible ignorance” doesn’t cut it! Even you don’t believe in limbo any more! So what happens to the dead?

The gospel is preached to them! It’s the same plan there as here!
 
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”

Jesus was saying that resurrected people (angels) in heaven will be androgynous, no longer distinguished by sex. I hear Mormons understand this differently.

Matthew 22:31 “But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

God is for living people. He is not the God of the dead. Therefore there is no need to baptize the dead.
As far as marriage, that is for another thread. We are talking about work for the dead here.

In verse 33 Jesus is saying that Abraham Isaac and Jacob would be resurrected, and so would be among the “living”.

He was saying this to those who did not believe in the resurrection to prove the resurrection
 
bukowski, was there ever a time, OT or NT, that what you call ordinances were instructed, by God, to be performed for the souls of the dead? Cirumcision? Offerings? Marriage? Anything?
That old favorite, 1 Corinthians, 15: 29.
 
hes talking about a different church than you realize, one not made from brick and mortar. He is talking about The church in relation to the body of Christ (fellow believers) the problem is that the actual church is ridiculously small because everyone (protestants, catholics, etc.) is divided and wants to be individualistic. For instance whens the last time most of you had true fellowship with brethren? That was the only thing I was once used to, then I realized that we are all the church and we are meant to come together as one body and fellowship, and not go to some dead service that makes you fall asleep, go to service on sunday to help you stay current, so that you can actually be a church or minister
As I said elsewhere, we all go where we are most comfortable.😉
 
AMAZING: Changing names is a very big significance with God. Jesus renames Simon “Rock” and in the very same sentence says to Simon -the Rock- that “upon this Rock I will build my Church,” and someone will submit that Christ did not build His Church upon Simon the Rock. That is amazing to me.
I don’t think I ever said that or implied it. Peter was unquestionably the first prophet, who had all the keys of the church given to him. But there is another interpretation possible that the church was founded upon the rock of revelation.

We are talking about the “gates of hell” which has nothing to do with Peter, except a disagreement about what keys he had

The catholics here apparantly want to limit the church’s power to preach to the dead. They are unwilling to say that God could give those keys to Peter.

I think he did give the keys to both heaven and hades to Peter.

It is the catholics who seek to limit Peter’s authority, not me.
 
That old favorite, 1 Corinthians, 15: 29.
Not exactly an instruction. It is a comment on a practice that arose on its own.

Like Catholics praying to Saints on behalf of the souls of the dead. It is not required for salvation.

No where does it say either practice is required. A person can be Catholic and never say prayer one on behalf of the dead. Of course we do, because we care for the souls of those we love.

But, I don’t know of anyone who combs through their genealogy looking for people to pray for.
 
I don’t think I ever said that or implied it. Peter was unquestionably the first prophet, who had all the keys of the church given to him. But there is another interpretation possible that the church was founded upon the rock of revelation.

We are talking about the “gates of hell” which has nothing to do with Peter, except a disagreement about what keys he had

The catholics here apparantly want to limit the church’s power to preach to the dead. They are unwilling to say that God could give those keys to Peter.

I think he did give the keys to both heaven and hades to Peter.

It is the catholics who seek to limit Peter’s authority, not me.
Since you keep bringing it up, I’ll ask again, please provide the scriptures that reference keys to hell.
 
FROM: catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp

Mormons cite a single biblical passage to support baptizing members on behalf of dead persons, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:29).

Mormons infer that in 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks approvingly of living Christians receiving baptism on behalf of dead non-Christians; however, the context and construction of the verse indicate otherwise. The Greek phrase rendered by the King James Version as “for the dead” is huper ton nekron. This phrase is as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English. The preposition huper has a wide semantic range and can indicate “for the sake of,” “on behalf of,” “over,” “beyond,” or “more than.” Like the English preposition “for,” it does not have a single meaning and does not require the Mormon idea of being baptized in place of the dead. Such a reading would be unlikely given the more plausible interpretations available, and even if huper were taken to mean “in the place of,” it doesn’t mean Paul endorses the practice.

First Corinthians 15 is a key chapter for Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body. He makes no statement on baptism for dead persons except to note that some unnamed “they” practice it. While the rest of his teaching in chapter fifteen refers to “we,” his Christian followers, “they” are not further identified. Who this group was may not be known with certitude today, but there are some reasonable interpretations:
  1. Others advance the possibility that Paul was referring to the practice of a heretical cult that existed in Corinth. On this theory, Paul was not endorsing the practice of the group, but merely citing it to emphasize the importance of the resurrection. Rather, his point was: If even heterodox Christians have a practice that makes no sense if there is no resurrection of the dead, how much more, then, should we orthodox Catholics believe in and hope for the resurrection of the dead.
There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead. Some Mormon writers assert that some Christian commentators have discussed the possibility of a kind of “baptism for the dead” among some in the Corinthian community in Paul’s time. But these commentators do not suggest that the practice was accepted or mainstream. Given the silence of Scripture and tradition, we conclude rightly when we see this behavior as another aberration within a community of believers already soundly scolded by Paul for its lack of charity, its factionalism, its immorality, its abuse of the Eucharist, and other matters.

Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that.

To base your whole practice of baptism of the dead on one passage of Paul, is a little kooky to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top