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

[notsmart]

kevengreen,

Are you one poster or two posters?

posts 159, and 160 sorta answer each other as if you are 2 different people. About how many books paul wrote
Post 159:

" paul wrote 13 books i dont how y got 2 "

Post 160:
“Sorry ST.PETER wrote 13 books, my bad”

 

[kevangreen]

kevengreen,

Are you one poster or two posters?

posts 159, and 160 sorta answer each other as if you are 2 different people. About how many books paul wrote
Post 159:

" paul wrote 13 books i dont how y got 2 "

Post 160:
“Sorry ST.PETER wrote 13 books, my bad”

first one was a goof
the second one is right

 

[notsmart]

first one was a goof
the second one is right

Okay! Sorry I am just wanting to be certian I understand correctly!

God loves us

 

[BDawg]

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.

I’m with you up to this point.

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…

So it seems like you are saying that what Jesus meant was something like:

“You are a rock, and upon this I will build my assembly of believers [Greek ekklesia = assembly = Church]. Death will not prevail against my assembly.”

I’m fine with this reading. In fact, it’s the one I prefer. Jesus is simply saying that the keys he gives Peter release people from the effects of death, and give them eternal life. It doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with the continual survival of the earthly Church.

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.

I thought I followed everything you said, but I still can’t fathom why you think what you said supports the idea that Jesus was promising the perpetual survival of the earthly Church.

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.

Prodigal, you are so keen on “winning” this argument that you aren’t even paying attention to what you are saying. You already said that:

1. The function of “gates” is to keep people from passing in or out, and
2. “Hell” translates the word “Hades,” which is the world of the dead.

Now you say, "’…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?

Let me explain, once again. IF

1. The function of “gates” is to keep people from passing in or out,

AND

1. “Hell” translates the word “Hades,” which is the world of the dead,

THEN

1. “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” means, “the gates of the world of the dead will not be able to keep the Church from passing through.”

In other words, because of the keys Peter was given, the Church will be rescued from death and given eternal life. Seems simple enough to me.

I don’t have any idea why you emphasize “IT” with capitalization, bolding, and underlining. I said “it” was the Church, and I have never gotten the impression that you were saying anything different.

So now the question is, “Was Jesus promising that the earthly Church would survive perpetually?”

If that’s the case, then why would Jesus invoke the image of rescue from the clutches of death? If the Church was to be rescued from death, it had to die.

But the fact is that I don’t think the passage is referring to the Church as an earthly entity, at all. “Church” is the typical English translation of “ekklesia,” which is the Greek word meaning “assembly.” An assembly is made up of people, and people die. However, because Peter was given the keys that bind in heaven, the assembly will be saved from death and given eternal life.

 

[BDawg]

kevengreen,

Are you one poster or two posters?

posts 159, and 160 sorta answer each other as if you are 2 different people. About how many books paul wrote
Post 159:

" paul wrote 13 books i dont how y got 2 "

Post 160:
“Sorry ST.PETER wrote 13 books, my bad”

Hi kevangreen,

You have it backwards. Two of the New Testament books (1 Peter and 2 Peter) are attributed to Peter. Fourteen of the New Testament books (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews) are attributed to Paul.

If you open up your New Testament and look at the headers, it usually will say who the book is attributed to.

 

[kevangreen]

Hi kevangreen,

You have it backwards. Two of the New Testament books (1 Peter and 2 Peter) are attributed to Peter. Fourteen of the New Testament books (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews) are attributed to Paul.

If you open up your New Testament and look at the headers, it usually will say who the book is attributed to.

i always get them mixed up,
i just don’t know why other people who say they are christian
try to disprove us with our book
that we wrote i think it is funny

 

[BDawg]

i always get them mixed up,
i just don’t know why other people who say they are christian
try to disprove us with our book
that we wrote i think it is funny

Maybe they do that because they don’t concede that it is “your” book?

 

[kevangreen]

Maybe they do that because they don’t concede that it is “your” book?

If it is not our book this imagine this,
peter and paul don’t write the majority of the new testament,
then we would be jews instead of Christians because we would have
no new testament. The new testament is defiantly ours, and people try to disprove us with our own book it dosent really work.

 

[BDawg]

If it is not our book this imagine this,
peter and paul don’t write the majority of the new testament,
then we would be jews instead of Christians because we would have
no new testament. The new testament is defiantly ours, and people try to disprove us with our own book it dosent really work.

Suppose Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. come along and start telling the Jews that they were misinterpreting the Old Testament. Isn’t it ridiculous that they would try to disprove the Jews’ viewpoint using their own book? If it weren’t for the Jews, they wouldn’t have had an Old Testament.

 

[NewSeeker]

This debate comes down to one thing: did God provide a source for authoritative interpretation of scripture? If so, what is that source? Protestants say sola scriptura and the Spirit, but this produces confusion and fragmentation of Christianity since it makes everyone a prophet (and each is convinced the Spirit is speaking to him/her individually, which proves the Spirit is not speaking anyone who disagrees). This fragmentation and hyper individualism cannot be God’s will. Mormonism falls flat for the simple reason that Joseph Smith was not a credible witness. There is zero archeological evidence for Nephite/Lamanite civilizations found in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham was a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination – enough of the original papyri were discovered to prove definitively that Joseph made the whole thing up (and yes, I already know all about Nibley’s and FARMS lame apologetics based on parallelisms and circular reasoning). Joseph’s testimony is simply not credible given these facts.

That leaves orthodox Christianity (in the small “o” sense) for someone who wants to be a follower of Jesus. By the end of the first century Christian worship was liturgical and based on the belief that Jesus was literally present in the Eucharist. If there was an Apostasy, it had to have occurred no later than 50-60 years after the crucifixion. By 110, the Bishop of Antioch was already talking like a Catholic and describing in some detail the developing priesthood hierarchy, including the absolute authority of the bishop, and his belief that the bread and wine were literally Jesus’ body and blood. In fact he condemned those who disagreed with this tenet as heretics. So here we have a bishop talking an awful lot like a Catholic, and doing so as he was being force marched to Rome to be thrown to the lions in the Coliseum. His letter to the Romans begged Christians there to not intercede on his behalf. He longed to finally be with his Lord. And, interestingly, Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle. I’d say that’s some good, positive evidence (to cite just one example) to support the teachings of orthodox Christianity. There is zero evidence that an Apostasy occurred, except for some vague Bible verses supposedly predicting the event, verses that no one agrees on anyway (e.g. sola scriptura and private interpretation).

 

[kevangreen]

Suppose Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. come along and start telling the Jews that they were misinterpreting the Old Testament. Isn’t it ridiculous that they would try to disprove the Jews’ viewpoint using their own book? If it weren’t for the Jews, they wouldn’t have had an Old Testament.

I am not taking away from the jews, I am just saying that the new
testament is ours we wrote it, and they were told they were wrong that is why we have a new testament. Jesus was killed for things that he preached that went into the new testament that contrasted the old testament.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“You are a rock, and upon this I will build my assembly of believers [Greek ekklesia = assembly = Church]. Death will not prevail against my assembly.”

I’m fine with this reading. In fact, it’s the one I prefer. Jesus is simply saying that the keys he gives Peter release people from the effects of death, and give them eternal life. It doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with the continual survival of the earthly Church.

The assembly is the Body of Christ, a.k.a. the Church, ekklesia. The explanation of the authority, “…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” was given to the Church, through it’s leaders. Later in chapter 18, the Lord is teaching those leaders He is sending out to preach the Gospel.

**Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. **

During this session, He teaches about how disputes are to be handled. It appears the Lord talked like the Church would be there to settle disputes.

After His resurrection, the Lord appeared to the leaders of the Church.

**Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

He is with, the leaders of the Church, ALL days, even to the consummation of the world, which appears to state the leaders of the Church would be here all days even to the consummation of the world. Christ knew the original leaders would not be here to the consummation of the world, but his Church would be.

Now, before you attempt to tell me this was a message meant for only the Apostles, that idea would be contradicted by the message of, “teach all nations…”, which we believe to mean all people.

I know we have our differences of apostolic succession, which as Mormons say, is a matter of faith. Only, for Catholics it’s a matter of faith and documentation passed down through Christ’s living Church, the Body of Christ. The first apostolic succession is documented in the Bible, by the appointment of Matthias. Was the apostolic succession intended to grow? I think it was by the adding of St. Paul, who did not replace anyone, but added to the number of the Apostles.

St. Ignatius was appointed by St. Peter. Tradition says he was one of the children Jesus took in His arms and blessed. It is believed that St. Ignatius was a disciple, student, of St. John the beloved disciple. I use this example to demonstrate the succession grows and continues beyond the original apostles.

Prodigal, you are so keen on “winning” this argument…

I’m not trying to win an “argument”. I am trying to convey what you said you don’t understand about Catholic belief. I apologize if I’ve said something out of line as to make you think I was arguing. Any sign of frustration on my part, is apparently my fault for not clearly articulating my beliefs.

1. “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” means, “the gates of the world of the dead will not be able to keep the Church from passing through.”

In other words, because of the keys Peter was given, the Church will be rescued from death and given eternal life. Seems simple enough to me.

I don’t have any idea why you emphasize “IT” with capitalization, bolding, and underlining. I said “it” was the Church, and I have never gotten the impression that you were saying anything different.

Let’s try another synonym from the definition I provided earlier. “…And the gates of hell shall not “triumph” against it (the Church).” It does not imply the objective of the Church is to “pass through” the gate. The implication is the gates or whatever is beyond the gates will not win against the Church.

As I explained, I am not trying to win an “argument”. Besides trying to convey the Catholic belief, I am also trying to understand what the Mormon belief is. Now, with the appearance of your statements that the Church must pass through the gates or die is a bit confusing. Maybe it’s confusing to Catholics because we believe the Church is the Body of Christ, which I think we all agree is perpetual.

I’ve had to rush through this, I have some things to take care of today. I will check back this afternoon or this evening sometime.

Have a good day.

 

[kevangreen]

The assembly is the Body of Christ, a.k.a. the Church, ekklesia. The explanation of the authority, “…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” was given to the Church, through it’s leaders. Later in chapter 18, the Lord is teaching those leaders He is sending out to preach the Gospel.

**Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. **

During this session, He teaches about how disputes are to be handled. It appears the Lord talked like the Church would be there to settle disputes.

After His resurrection, the Lord appeared to the leaders of the Church.

Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

He is with, the leaders of the Church, ALL days, even to the consummation of the world, which appears to state the leaders of the Church would be here all days even to the consummation of the world. Christ knew the original leaders would not be here to the consummation of the world, but his Church would be.

Now, before you attempt to tell me this was a message meant for only the Apostles, that idea would be contradicted by the message of, “teach all nations…”, which we believe to mean all people.

I know we have our differences of apostolic succession, which as Mormons say, is a matter of faith. Only, for Catholics it’s a matter of faith and documentation passed down through Christ’s living Church, the Body of Christ. The first apostolic succession is documented in the Bible, by the appointment of Matthias. Was the apostolic succession intended to grow? I think it was by the adding of St. Paul, who did not replace anyone, but added to the number of the Apostles.

St. Ignatius was appointed by St. Peter. Tradition says he was one of the children Jesus took in His arms and blessed. It is believed that St. Ignatius was a disciple, student, of St. John the beloved disciple. I use this example to demonstrate the succession grows and continues beyond the original apostles.

I’m not trying to win an “argument”. I am trying to convey what you said you don’t understand about Catholic belief. I apologize if I’ve said something out of line as to make you think I was arguing. Any sign of frustration on my part, is apparently my fault for not clearly articulating my beliefs.

Let’s try another synonym from the definition I provided earlier. “…And the gates of hell shall not “triumph” against it (the Church).” It does not imply the objective of the Church is to “pass through” the gate. The implication is the gates or whatever is beyond the gates will not win against the Church.

As I explained, I am not trying to win an “argument”. Besides trying to convey the Catholic belief, I am also trying to understand what the Mormon belief is. Now, with the appearance of your statements that the Church must pass through the gates or die is a bit confusing. Maybe it’s confusing to Catholics because we believe the Church is the Body of Christ, which I think we all agree is perpetual.

I’ve had to rush through this, I have some things to take care of today. I will check back this afternoon or this evening sometime.

Have a good day.

you say i am trying to win well as an irish catholic that is what we do, teach all nations the word of god that was there in oral tradition soon to be written in the new testament,
not run around on bikes and give people the mormon book
all nations do have a at least descent catholic popuation
we do make up 80% of Christians

 

[mfbukowski]

I’m with you up to this point.

So it seems like you are saying that what Jesus meant was something like:

“You are a rock, and upon this I will build my assembly of believers [Greek ekklesia = assembly = Church]. Death will not prevail against my assembly.”

I’m fine with this reading. In fact, it’s the one I prefer. Jesus is simply saying that the keys he gives Peter release people from the effects of death, and give them eternal life. It doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with the continual survival of the earthly Church.

I thought I followed everything you said, but I still can’t fathom why you think what you said supports the idea that Jesus was promising the perpetual survival of the earthly Church.

Prodigal, you are so keen on “winning” this argument that you aren’t even paying attention to what you are saying. You already said that:

1. The function of “gates” is to keep people from passing in or out, and
2. “Hell” translates the word “Hades,” which is the world of the dead.

Now you say, "’…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?

Let me explain, once again. IF

1. The function of “gates” is to keep people from passing in or out,

AND

1. “Hell” translates the word “Hades,” which is the world of the dead,

THEN

1. “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” means, “the gates of the world of the dead will not be able to keep the Church from passing through.”

In other words, because of the keys Peter was given, the Church will be rescued from death and given eternal life. Seems simple enough to me.

I don’t have any idea why you emphasize “IT” with capitalization, bolding, and underlining. I said “it” was the Church, and I have never gotten the impression that you were saying anything different.

So now the question is, “Was Jesus promising that the earthly Church would survive perpetually?”

If that’s the case, then why would Jesus invoke the image of rescue from the clutches of death? If the Church was to be rescued from death, it had to die.

But the fact is that I don’t think the passage is referring to the Church as an earthly entity, at all. “Church” is the typical English translation of “ekklesia,” which is the Greek word meaning “assembly.” An assembly is made up of people, and people die. However, because Peter was given the keys that bind in heaven, the assembly will be saved from death and given eternal life.

 

[mfbukowski]

By the end of the first century Christian worship was liturgical and based on the belief that Jesus was literally present in the Eucharist. If there was an Apostasy, it had to have occurred no later than 50-60 years after the crucifixion. By 110, the Bishop of Antioch was already talking like a Catholic and describing in some detail the developing priesthood hierarchy, including the absolute authority of the bishop, and his belief that the bread and wine were literally Jesus’ body and blood.

Yep.

That shows that the apostasy had already occurred by the end of the first century.

 

[Jerusha]

So what you call apostasy is what we call God’s church. I guess we will all find out in the end, right? :heaven:

 

[NewSeeker]

That shows that the apostasy had already occurred by the end of the first century.

Well, since Ignatius was appointed bishop by Peter and was a student of John, then clearly both Peter and John were in apostasy as well. Unless you care to assert that Ignatius was in apostasy from both apostles’ teaching by the time he wrote his letters. But mere assertion is not evidence. Do you have any evidence that Ignatius first held proto-Mormon views and then joined a heretical catholic movement? For that matter, without using LDS sources, what’s your evidence of proto-Mormon doctrines and church organization existing before 100 ad?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert my buddy

…So if that is the sole biblical authority for apostolic succession, and if that doesn’t prove apostolic succession, my conclusion is that Catholics have no biblical authority for apostolic succession. So for me, the Protestant and Mormon interpretation of that one scripture stands.

So, the issue is one of whether or not the scripture passage from Mt. 16:18 supprts the argument for apostolic succession; Or, in other words, does the promise that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against Peter, also clearly intend to extend to Peter’s successors? If that’s the case, then I think one needs to look at the keys, and the promise in Mt. 16 made by Jesus:

[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, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death 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.
[21] From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. (Mt. 16:16-21)

Christ tells Simon he is (now) Peter, and on this rock he will build his Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against… (Peter or the Church). The text suggests that the gate of hell would not prevail against Christ’s Church, not that they would not prevail only against Peter. So, what you are suggesting is that the text means the gates of hell would not prevail against just Peter, whereas the text, given a fair reading, is saying that the gates will not prevail against the Church.

The next issue (I’m presuming) is how long will Christ’s Church last - Peter’s lifetime, or through successive authorities? Well, he gives Peter “keys to the kingdom” for “binding” and “loosing.” This is a reference to the OT keys of the “prime minister” for the Davidic kingdom. And it is a symbol for succession. Most readers of the day understood that the keys were a very important sign for the authority of a minister acting on behalf of the king. Don’t believe me? Read more about successionhere

And the Early Church Fathers certainly understood the truth of apostolic succession. Read here.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[BDawg]

Hi Prodigal,

Now, before you attempt to tell me this was a message meant for only the Apostles, that idea would be contradicted by the message of, “teach all nations…”, which we believe to mean all people.

Maybe if I make another point about Mormon belief, you will at least understand better how we would interpret such a passage.

Jesus DID give this message to the Apostles alone, and Mormons believe that one of them, John, was “translated.” That is, he was given angelic status, and has stayed on Earth all that time. (This is called “translation,” and the idea is that he won’t die until Christ comes, at which time he will be immediately resurrected.) He has been ministering to the people of the Earth ever since. So when Jesus promised the Apostles that he would be with them to the end of the age, he was telling the truth. And the Apostles have taught “all nations.”

You might object that I have no proof that John has been alive on Earth all this time. Well, you’re right, but I can at least scare up some decent circumstantial evidence. Here is the relevant passage from John 21.

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

  22  Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what *is that* to thee?  follow thou me. 

 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what *is that* to thee?

This is a really enigmatic passage. Jesus asks a question: “If John is going to stick around till I come again, what is it to you?” The disciples take that to mean that John won’t die, but Jesus says, “I didn’t say that. I ASKED, ‘If John is going to stick around till I come again, what is it to you?’”

Now, why would Jesus ask such a question, if John wasn’t slated for some special job that required him sticking around until Jesus’ Second Coming? And why didn’t he just directly answer the disciples’ question when they asked him about it? However, you interpret the passage, it is clear that something strange is going on.

St. Hippolytus of Rome (early third century) reported the following tradition about John. “John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.” (Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:254-255.)

Now, Hippolytus does say John died, but is that just an assumption on his part? Because he also says that nobody could find a body. Throws a big monkey wrench into a murder trial when nobody can find a body.

“But,” you might object, “what kind of strange doctrine is this? God doesn’t ‘translate’ people’s bodies into an immortal state, and keep them hanging around the Earth indefinitely!” Well, the earliest Christians would have disagreed with this sentiment. Consider the following statement from Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 100 A.D), who went around collecting oral traditions about what the Apostles said from those who had actually heard them. He explicitly mentioned the doctrine of “translation”.

“Where, then, was the first man placed? In paradise certainly, as the Scripture declares ‘And God planted a garden [paradisum] eastward in Eden, and there He placed the man whom He had formed.’ And then afterwards when [man] proved disobedient, he was cast out thence into this world. Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the Apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the Apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality.” (Papias, quoted in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:5:1, in ANF 1:531, brackets in original.)

I know of another ancient Christian work that mentions the doctrine of translation, as well.

(Cont’d in next post)

 

[BDawg]

(Cont’d from last post)

The first apostolic succession is documented in the Bible, by the appointment of Matthias. Was the apostolic succession intended to grow? I think it was by the adding of St. Paul, who did not replace anyone, but added to the number of the Apostles.

You’re sure that none of the other Apostles had been killed by then? (Actually, it makes no difference to me. Just curious as to whether you actually checked that assertion.)

St. Ignatius was appointed by St. Peter. Tradition says he was one of the children Jesus took in His arms and blessed. It is believed that St. Ignatius was a disciple, student, of St. John the beloved disciple. I use this example to demonstrate the succession grows and continues beyond the original apostles.

I believe a lot of Catholics were a little shell-shocked in the 20th century when the Church had to admit that some of the “saints” probably didn’t exist. My point? There are a lot of Catholic traditions. And many of them have very little historical basis. In the case of Ignatius, there is reason to believe that his biography has been “enhanced” in Catholic tradition. See this website that quotes from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia.

Let’s try another synonym from the definition I provided earlier. “…And the gates of hell shall not “triumph” against it (the Church).” It does not imply the objective of the Church is to “pass through” the gate. The implication is the gates or whatever is beyond the gates will not win against the Church.

How does a gate “win,” if not by keeping something in or out? Why invoke “gate” imagery at all, if Jesus didn’t mean that? In your interpretation, the word “gate” seems to have no reason for being there. Jesus might as well have said, “the oatmeal of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Now, with the appearance of your statements that the Church must pass through the gates or die is a bit confusing. Maybe it’s confusing to Catholics because we believe the Church is the Body of Christ, which I think we all agree is perpetual.

I agree, but the Body of Christ includes both the living and the dead. (I believe you guys would link this with the “Communion of the Saints,” or something like that, no?) So a time of apostasy does not destroy the Church.