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

[Snow]

I believe you saw the scriptures I posted showing the replacement of Judas, with Matthias. That appears to be the beginning of apostolic succession, so it makes it hard for one to accept that they “didn’t”.

As I said - it was a process, not an event. It didn’t happen overnight. Here’s a case where the Church of Jesus Christ LDS gives an excellent example religion making and how new religious movements develop (not that you think it is the same) but it is illustrative.

After the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, there was still a full set of apostles and Church leaders. But it was precarious. Doctrine wasn’t fully understood. There was violence and persecution. There were competing power bases and different people with different motivations and desires. Were it not for Brigham Young, or if half or more of the apostles had been killed, the Church could have slipped into disarray and eventually into apostasy. It would have been a real possibility.

I understand what you believe now, but had there been an apostasy so great as to cause the Church to lose it’s authority, isn’t it considered by Mormons that there was a lapse where there was no Church?

That’s right - no Church fully authorized by God - but there were still believers and goodness and devotedness and some, but not all truth.

That’s a good point. While you may not agree with me, let’s look at the rise of Christianity. Was there a total apostasy of the Jews? No, Jews and gentiles were converted to Christianity, the new convenant with God. So not all Jews were “lost”. Christ Himself was a Jew.

Well, for that matter, many Catholics become LDS.

Seems to contradict an apostasy in the respect that even a few men could have maintained the Church Christ created, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, which would have prevented a total apostasy.

Yes - you have a point but we do not believe that God’s priesthood authority with a prophet and apostles at the head remained.

It was more a question than an assertion. I normally hear reformation used by Protestants. Again, I’d consider evidence from the era we’re discussing. Just so you know, I am in the midst of a project to read the writings of the early Church fathers. As it appears you’re familiar with those writings, I’d assume you realize that could be a long time read.

Indeed.

Again, and I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, those being discussed in the above passages were heretics. Hegesippus for example could have been referring to the Gnostics or those of Marcion. I’ve seen a small bit on some of the heresies, but will readily admit I need to familiarize myself to a greater extent.

Anyways, being heretics or apostates does not make a total apostasy, seemingly apparent by the fact that they were written about as preaching their false doctrine against the gospel of truth, which seems to indicate the gospel of truth still existed at that time.

Hegesippus was known as contributing writings which were considered Church history.

I think there is ample evidence for an apostasy… but evidence or not, it is still a matter of faith. We believe it because the prophet said that God said it. We find evidence of it when we check, it is a belief, not a historical, factual certainty… in my humble opinion.

Once more, I want to say I appreciate the tone of our discussion.

God Bless,

As do I.

Regards.

 

[mfbukowski]

1. 
   *]When, exactly did this great apostasy occur?
   
   Mostly in the first 100 years after Christ’s death. Certainly it was complete by the 4th century.
   
   *]Who started the great apostasy?
   
   It’s not like a basketball game where Carlos Boozer scores the first basket. It, I think, was a series of complex and inter-related events and dynamics.
   
   *]Where did the great apostasy take place?
   
   It wasn’t a geographic event.
   
   *]Who defended against the great apostasy?
   
   You can see Paul defending against it starting in the NT.
   
   *]Where is documentation of those who apostasized?
   
   In speaking of the Great Apostasy, it isn’t a matter of individual apostasy.
   
   Your questions don’t make much sense to me but I think you are sincere and just have never explored the topic. The concept is a well-known and widespread belief, now and historically in Christianity. It is not simply an LDS belief.
   
   I like to argue and debate but generally my intent is not to denigrate anyone’s faith. Trying to “prove” the apostasy, as opposed to merely acknowledging it seems an attempt to attack the RCC. However, if you really want to go over it, I could probably find time to give you are overview. Let me know.

1. 
   Just for everyone’s information, I had a thread running with prodigal a few months ago which ran to 900 posts before it got shut down and deleted for lack of charity, to say the least.
   
   I personally have no desire to go down that road again, so go to it and have a good time, but I will be out of here for that portion of the discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, for that matter, many Catholics become LDS.

And, vice versus.

I think there is ample evidence for an apostasy… but evidence or not, it is still a matter of faith. We believe it because the prophet said that God said it. We find evidence of it when we check, it is a belief, not a historical, factual certainty… in my humble opinion.

Yes, I’ve heard that before, and I can tell by your tone you understand when I say the same for my opposing belief.

:tiphat:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just for everyone’s information, I had a thread running with prodigal a few months ago which ran to 900 posts before it got shut down and deleted for lack of charity, to say the least.

I personally have no desire to go down that road again, so go to it and have a good time, but I will be out of here for that portion of the discussion.

I wouldn’t leave now MF. I believe Snow and I came to a mutual conclusion to agree to disagree sort of. At least I don’t have any questions or comments at the moment. I’ll be checking back in as responses come in.

:takeoff:

 

[wisdomseeker]

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

Those who have accepted a new gospel about an apostacy of the apostolic church has to contend with denying Jesus conferring a Kingdom upon the apostles. I just dont get how Mormons or apostacy believers can live with themselves calling God a liar, and denying all the statements from Jesus himself, about building his church.
Luke 22:27
For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28
It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
**29
and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. **

People who accept this apostacy of late invention by man, cannot provide any facts of the name of the people, province, exact date, and why? History proves this invention never happened. The Catholic church and Pagan Rome have a recorded history dating from the first century through the fourth century, no mention of a total apostacy. What inventions the evil one invents in man to tempt him away from the body of Jesus Christ.

To attempt to date an apostacy through 4 centuries, really insults the intelligence of people, without providing facts. Rhetoric does not constitute as proof or fact.

Amen. as time goes by we continue to hear more and more lies about the Church. i would like to know when this idea of apostacy came about. i think we can expect more and more of these just to keep people outside of the True Church.

if they could hear themselves, they would realize they make no
sense. i think they get confuse between roman pagan empire and the Church since the Church is in rome.

i will leave at that for now.

 

[kevangreen]

Well, I agree, but Catholics still keep on making the same argument over and over, like a litany. It seems they cannot hear that there could be other interpretations because the magesterium has told them that one interpretation. And what is sad is their whole scriptural claim to authority is based on that one verse with their very questionable interpretation.

But where are the protestants? I guess they also take the catholic interpretation, which is inconceivable to me.

Well 13 of the 24 books in the new testament were qritten by st.peter our first pope, So the book that Christians use is a catholic one in the end.

 

[East_Anglican]

Well 13 of the 24 books in the new testament were qritten by st.peter our first pope, So the book that Christians use is a catholic one in the end.

Mathew 1 (Matthew)

Mark 1 (Mark)

Luke 2 (Luke and Acts)

John 4 (John, I John, II John and Revelation)

Paul 13 (Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galations, Ephesians, Philipeans, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus and Philemon)

James 1 (James)

Peter 2 (I Peter and II Peter)

Jude 1 (Jude)

Unknown 1 (Hebrews)

 

[East_Anglican]

In Old Testament times The Gates of the city was where the elders of the city met.

Deuteronomy 21:19
his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.
Deuteronomy 22:15
then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate.

Deuteronomy 25:7
However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfil the duty of a brother-in-law to me.”

Joshua 20:4
"When he flees to one of these cities, he is to stand in the entrance of the city gate and state his case before the elders of that city. Then they are to admit him into their city and give him a place to live with them.

Ruth 4:11
Then the elders and all those at the gate said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem.

Proverbs 31:23
Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

Lamentations 5:14
The elders are gone from the city gate; the young men have stopped their music.

The elders were men of wisdom

Proverbs 24:7
Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the assembly at the gate he has nothing to say.

The gates of Hell represent The wisdom of Hell. It is beliefs and philosophies that are opposed to Christ and his Church.

As the Church has The wisdom of Heaven the wisdom of Hell can not stand against it.

James 3:16-18
16For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
17But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

Wisdom that comes from Heaven is built on the revelation that Jesus is The Christ The Son of God.

Because Gods wisdom has been revealed to The Church the wisdom of Hell can not stand against it.

To know what The True Church is we need to know who Jesus is and take it from there.

I couldn’t care less about Apostolic Succesion.

 

[Snow]

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

Amen. as time goes by we continue to hear more and more lies about the Church.

What lies, specifically, are you referring to?

i would like to know when this idea of apostacy came about.

Ah, about 51 AD.

“Be not soon shaken in mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, not by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by many means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (apostasia = apostasy) first.” (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3).

See also Matthew 24:5, Matthew 24:4, 9-13, 24; John 16:2-3; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; Galatians 1:6-8; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-9, 12-13; 4:3-4; Titus 1:10-16; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 3:3; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 3-4; Revelation 13:4-8.

Of course the OT is full of verse about prior apostasies.

i think we can expect more and more of these just to keep people outside of the True Church.

if they could hear themselves, they would realize they make no
sense. i think they get confuse between roman pagan empire and the Church since the Church is in rome.

i will leave at that for now.

I can hear myself. What specifically about what I am saying makes no sense?

 

[Snow]

Well 13 of the 24 books in the new testament were qritten by st.peter our first pope, So the book that Christians use is a catholic one in the end.

Well - that would be incorrect.

Peter may have authored 2, not 13, books of the New Testament.

The early Church universally accepted that 1 Peter was written by Peter but that has been called into question in modern times. For example, it is believed by some that 1:1,2 and 4:12-5:14 are later interpolations.

Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is very problematic with difficulties in both the internal and external evidence.

By the way, what are the other 11 books that you mistakenly had in mind?

 

[BDawg]

Because Gods wisdom has been revealed to The Church the wisdom of Hell can not stand against it.

To know what The True Church is we need to know who Jesus is and take it from there.

I couldn’t care less about Apostolic Succesion.

Hi East Anglican,

I don’t think this interpretation will necessarily work, because the word translated “Hell” in Matt. 16 is the Greek “Hades,” which is just the world of the dead–both good and evil.

What do gates do? They either keep things in, or keep things out. So gates that “prevail against” something must either keep them in or out.

In the standard Catholic interpretation, these verses mean that the earthly Church would be kept out of Hades. It would never die. But this is a rather strange way to interpret the verse, because nobody actually WANTS to get IN the gates of Hades. If the gates DIDN’T prevail against the Church, then the Church must have gotten past the gates, somehow.

So it makes much more sense to interpret the verse to mean that the the gates were trying to KEEP the Church INSIDE Hades, but failed. “…the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [the Church].” Therefore, the passage must either mean that:

1. the earthly Church went into the realm of the dead, and was later freed, or
2. the Church (as in, Christ’s assembly of believers) could not be kept back by death, but would eventually be freed from death into the glorious resurrection.

Either one of these would be fine, from a Mormon perspective.

I truly can’t fathom how Catholics can think this actually supports their case, however. Maybe the Catholics here can tell me: Which is it? Did the gates fail to keep the Church in or out of the world of the dead? I assume you will answer that the gates failed to keep the Church in. But then, when was the Church ever in the world of the dead?

Sounds like Jesus might have been prophesying about an impending apostasy?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi East Anglican,

I don’t think this interpretation will necessarily work, because the word translated “Hell” in Matt. 16 is the Greek “Hades,” which is just the world of the dead–both good and evil.

Hello again BDawg,

Below, I am providing the Greek translation and definition of hades. I have underlined part of the definition for emphasis.

G86
ᾅδης
hadēs
hah’-dace
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.

What do gates do? They either keep things in, or keep things out. So gates that “prevail against” something must either keep them in or out.

In the standard Catholic interpretation, these verses mean that the earthly Church would be kept out of Hades. It would never die. But this is a rather strange way to interpret the verse, because nobody actually WANTS to get IN the gates of Hades. If the gates DIDN’T prevail against the Church, then the Church must have gotten past the gates, somehow.

So it makes much more sense to interpret the verse to mean that the the gates were trying to KEEP the Church INSIDE Hades, but failed. “…the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [the Church].” Therefore, the passage must either mean that:

1. the earthly Church went into the realm of the dead, and was later freed, or

1. the Church (as in, Christ’s assembly of believers) could not be kept back by death, but would eventually be freed from death into the glorious resurrection.

Respectfully, I can not agree with your interpretation(s).

Your interpretation doesn’t work with the definition of the word “prevail”.

**pre·vail (pr-vl)
intr.v. pre·vailed, pre·vail·ing, pre·vails

1. To be greater in strength or influence; triumph: prevailed against the enemy.
2. To be or become effective; win out: hoped justice would prevail.
3. To be most common or frequent; be predominant: a region where snow and ice prevail.
4. To be in force, use, or effect; be current: an ancient tradition that still prevails.
5. To use persuasion or inducement successfully. Often used with on, upon, or with. See Synonyms at persuade.**

Christ said the gates of hell/hades shall not prevail…

Either one of these would be fine, from a Mormon perspective.

I truly can’t fathom how Catholics can think this actually supports their case, however. Maybe the Catholics here can tell me: Which is it? Did the gates fail to keep the Church in or out of the world of the dead? I assume you will answer that the gates failed to keep the Church in. But then, when was the Church ever in the world of the dead?

Sounds like Jesus might have been prophesying about an impending apostasy?

The Church Christ created was never in hell/hades. The Church was built upon Kephas (Rock, Peter). The promise was the gates of hell/hades shall not prevail against IT. This means whatever evil contained within the gates of hell/hades could not “To be greater in strength or influence; triumph:” against the Church. If the evil contained within the gates of hell/hades could not prevail, the acts of heretics, apostates or any group of “men” of earth, certainly couldn’t triumph against Christ’s Church.

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

BDawg,

I wanted to add, I got the hades from the Greek version of the New Testament. Checking 10 versions of the Bible, including the Greek version, 3 said hell, 1 said sheul, 3 said death, 1 said underworld and I’ve already told you the Greek translation said hades.

You have to look at it as good against evil, the Church Christ created of course was all good, the gates of hell represents the worst imaginable evil of those days. The promise was the worst imaginable evil would not prevail against His Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello again BDawg,

Below, I am providing the Greek translation and definition of hades. I have underlined part of the definition for emphasis.

G86
ᾅδης
hadēs
hah’-dace
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.

Also, the Apostles used the Septuagint, which translated the Hebrew “sheol” to Greek “hades”.

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.

Yes, it is true, Jesus did not say “thou art revelation”. That is completely changing Jesus’ words.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg,

I wanted to add, I got the hades from the Greek version of the New Testament. Checking 10 versions of the Bible, including the Greek version, 3 said hell, 1 said sheul, 3 said death, 1 said underworld and I’ve already told you the Greek translation said hades.

You have to look at it as good against evil, the Church Christ created of course was all good, the gates of hell represents the worst imaginable evil of those days. The promise was the worst imaginable evil would not prevail against His Church.

Hi Prodigal,

I don’t think I understand your argument. You listed a bunch of definitions of “prevail,” all of which seem fine to me. The question is, however, what it means for “gates” to “prevail” against something. Do you agree that the function of gates is to keep something in or out?

Then you looked up the Greek word, “hades,” and you note that it can be translated as the world of the dead, sheol, or hell. Sheol was the Hebrew word for the world of the dead. As for “hell,” the problem is that in archaic English, hell meant EITHER the world of the dead, OR the the abode of Satan. In this case, the Greek word was clearly “hades,” which means the world of the dead.

So now you say, “You have to look at it as good against evil, the Church Christ created of course was all good, the gates of hell represents the worst imaginable evil of those days.”

Why? Nothing you said up to that point seems to support this interpretation at all (unless you count your misinterpretation of the English word, “hell.”) Hades was the world of the dead. Why should I interpret this as the worst imaginable evil? Why not just take it at face value, as the world of the dead?

A completely literal reading of the passage has Jesus saying that the gates of the world of the dead would not be able to keep the Church from passing through. It seems obvious to me that the gates of Hades would be keeping them IN Hades, so the Church would have to pass through the world of the dead.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sheol, Hades, or the netherworld, was the place of the dead. The Jews believed all the souls of the dead slept in sheol. A place of dust. Those who were in sheol were bound by ropes and kept inside by 7 gates.

The message of Christianity is that Jesus broke the bonds of death. Those judged as righteous are freed from the silence and dust of sheol and are with God, in heaven. Jesus is the light of the world, our souls have hope for eternal light, rather than eternal darkness.

So the view of sheol changed. Jesus released the souls of the dead. The ropes no longer bind them. Jesus holds the key to death, to the gates of sheol. He opened the gates of hell, of sheol, and redeemed the souls who slept there. Those who remain in sheol, bound by death and the gates of darkness are those who are judged as damned.

Where sheol was once the abode of all the souls of the dead, it became the abode of sinners and those who led evil lives.

Revelations describes Satan as being cast into the abyss. Sheol being described in the OT as an abyss, or pit. The abyss is also described as where Satan is given the key to open and release the demons from within, to torment those who do not have the seal of God on their forehead.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Prodigal,

I don’t think I understand your argument. You listed a bunch of definitions of “prevail,” all of which seem fine to me. The question is, however, what it means for “gates” to “prevail” against something. Do you agree that the function of gates is to keep something in or out?

Then you looked up the Greek word, “hades,” and you note that it can be translated as the world of the dead, sheol, or hell. Sheol was the Hebrew word for the world of the dead. As for “hell,” the problem is that in archaic English, hell meant EITHER the world of the dead, OR the the abode of Satan. In this case, the Greek word was clearly “hades,” which means the world of the dead.

So now you say, “You have to look at it as good against evil, the Church Christ created of course was all good, the gates of hell represents the worst imaginable evil of those days.”

Why? Nothing you said up to that point seems to support this interpretation at all (unless you count your misinterpretation of the English word, “hell.”) Hades was the world of the dead. Why should I interpret this as the worst imaginable evil? Why not just take it at face value, as the world of the dead?

A completely literal reading of the passage has Jesus saying that the gates of the world of the dead would not be able to keep the Church from passing through. It seems obvious to me that the gates of Hades would be keeping them IN Hades, so the Church would have to pass through the world of the dead.

The definition of prevail comes from The Free Dictionary. Yes, a gate can keep things in or out.

Semantics is not going to help either of us at this point. Aramaic translation was sheul. Greek translation was hades. English translation is hell. All amounts to death.

So, we’ll use dead. That’s about the worst thing to happen in a man’s life that “man” has no control over. Yet, if Peter has the “keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”, which is a primacy position of authority which can bind or loose on earth, with a promise it will be made so in Heaven, and Peter is the “rock” upon which Christ built His Church, there is a way to obtain life, everlasting life. One must become a part of the Body of Christ, His Church, and follow that which has been bound and loosed. Can the gates of death prevail over everlasting life? No, the gates of hell cannot prevail over the Church with everlasting life. If the gates of hell cannot prevail, what could? Nothing, nothing at all…

Now, I hope my analogy helps you understand. If you can’t grasp that, I don’t know how to make it any clearer for you.

You say “literal” reading and yet you ignore the literal reading as I’ve explained it to you, as well as the way it reads. It says, “…I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT.” Now, explain to me how you get, “Jesus saying that the gates of the world of the dead would not be able to keep the Church from passing through”, out of that?

Who is the “them” the gates are keeping in causing the Church to get in? I’ve taken the liberty of bolding it and underlining it in your post.

**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. **

 

[notsmart]

Snow,

You told me the apostacy occured between the second and thrid centuries? Is this correct?

Citations please?

 

[kevangreen]

paul wrote 13 books i dont how y got 2

 

[kevangreen]

Sorry ST.PETER wrote 13 books, my bad