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

[mfbukowski]

I don’t think “the gates of hell” is the most acurate translation. What Jesus is saying is that He is building His Church upon Peter and it will never fail. That is devestating for a church self-proclaiming to be the restored christian chuch

Well, it’s not devastating as I said in the OP. One question, even if your interpretation of the words are correct, is which church is “his church” which will win out against satan’s assault-- the Mormons or the Catholics?

Mormons would not say that the church totally “failed” – it just apostasized and lost authority, and lost many doctrines. But it still taught that Jesus was the Christ.

This would be a fall back position for any mormon.

But that’s not what I am arguing. I think the words actually mean something different.

I like your signature. There is nothing like a handsome Polish face !

 

[why_me]

Protestants have a different interpretation for this verse. They tend to disagree on the word rock which seems to take on a different meaning for them in the Greek. But a protestant would best be able to explain their interpretation for this verse. .

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

There’s more to the passage than just the one sentence MF was using. (It does bring back my original question of how the “rock of revelation” had the power to bind and loose on earth?)

In my earlier post, I brought up the “binding and loosing on earth”. Peter was given great authority with that statement. Authority that Christ knew He would protect and oversee. Christ knew that He was King and would rule His Church from Heaven, through the Church he built on earth.

**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.

All days means all days, with no 1800 year gaps.**

 

[ralphinal]

We have discussed this on here before, but it was a while back. Here are some possible things that this could mean.

First, hell in this passage would be more of a state in opposition to the Kingdom of God, not the place of the damned. IN this way, we could see hell as a growing kingdom, taking in more and more of the World. The gates, then, would be moving and encompassing more of humanity. The Church, however, would remain free from falling into the control of the devil. It is like a city that keeps annexing land. Sooner or later, they hit a town that will not join up. There we go.

Second, the gates represent a defensive position only. Hell is still that which is opposed to God, not the prison of the damned. As long as the CHurch stays on the attack on evil, they cannot stand up to the assalt of the Truth. This would mean that as long as the CHurch remanes true to Christ, evil cannot win.

Third, it is both.

Now, the LDS position is that at some point, the church DID stop preaching the Gosple. This would mean that the fell into “hell” as it were and the gates won. However, Jesus says “Never” not “for some time” or “mostly” but NEVER.

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

I’m providing below, an explanation that was provided to me from a friend, who has given me permission to use it.

There’s more to the passage than just the one sentence MF was using. (It does bring back my original question of how the “rock of revelation” had the power to bind and loose on earth?)

In my earlier post, I brought up the “binding and loosing on earth”. Peter was given great authority with that statement. Authority that Christ knew He would protect and oversee. Christ knew that He was King and would rule His Church from Heaven, through the Church he built on earth.

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.

All days means all days, with no 1800 year gaps.

1- I would like your reference to your friend if that is possible. I would like to pursue that further. Or at least find where he got his info about the temple of pan etc. Never heard that before

2- I am not disputing that Peter was the “holder of the keys” and was the chosen head of the church

3- Jesus WAS with his children - all days-- but the priesthood was not. During all that period, we knew he was God and Savior, we pray to him etc.

Catholics don’t seem to understand that for Mormons, Catholics are still in apostasy. I don’t for one minute believe that you pray to the “wrong Jesus” or that “Jesus is not with you” in mass, though you guys typically would accuse us of praying to “another Jesus”. He has been and is still “with you”. That scripture has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

4- You did not address the “gates of hell” interpretation I have put forth, that the reference was to the church’s attack on the gates of hades made by the savior just before his resurrection, as well as, from your point of view, prayers for those in purgatory. From your perspective, souls in purgatory receive benefit from prayers and are free to go on to heaven when their time is up-- the gates of hell do not prevail against those souls who are free to leave, due to your prayers for them. That is what that verse means.

To us, it is vicarious work for the dead, which is basically the same principle you have in purgatory. We do something here which benefits them. What we do is different, but the principle is the same.

 

[mfbukowski]

We have discussed this on here before, but it was a while back. Here are some possible things that this could mean.

First, hell in this passage would be more of a state in opposition to the Kingdom of God, not the place of the damned. IN this way, we could see hell as a growing kingdom, taking in more and more of the World. The gates, then, would be moving and encompassing more of humanity. The Church, however, would remain free from falling into the control of the devil. It is like a city that keeps annexing land. Sooner or later, they hit a town that will not join up. There we go.

Second, the gates represent a defensive position only. Hell is still that which is opposed to God, not the prison of the damned. As long as the CHurch stays on the attack on evil, they cannot stand up to the assalt of the Truth. This would mean that as long as the CHurch remanes true to Christ, evil cannot win.

Third, it is both.

Now, the LDS position is that at some point, the church DID stop preaching the Gosple. This would mean that the fell into “hell” as it were and the gates won. However, Jesus says “Never” not “for some time” or “mostly” but NEVER.

In both cases though, your pov is not much different from the classical interpretations, just that you are saying that the attack is slower. It is still an attack. Now you are moving the gates, but they are still attacking, just in slow motion!

If that’s what He meant, the metaphor definitely breaks down. If the Lord meant that the church would conquer evil, he would have said so. I think his point was something else.

I don’t think at all it is saying that the church would never be wrong.

 

[ralphinal]

In both cases though, your pov is not much different from the classical interpretations, just that you are saying that the attack is slower. It is still an attack. Now you are moving the gates, but they are still attacking, just in slow motion!

If that’s what He meant, the metaphor definitely breaks down. If the Lord meant that the church would conquer evil, he would have said so. I think his point was something else.

I don’t think at all it is saying that the church would never be wrong.

It is not that the Church will conquor evil in as much as it will not defeat the Church.

Now, the idea that you put forth that it was Jesus proclaiming to the spirits in prison has one issue with that, that I see. It was not the Church doing it but Christ himself.

If the Church can be wrong, then it can be teaching errors or even be promoting evil. At that time, it is no longer Christ’s church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t disagree. I think, as you know we do, RebeccaJ, that Peter was the first “president” or “pope” of the church. I don’t doubt that.

No, I don’t remember being taught this.

And regardless of what you think, I have resolved not to be argumentative. I am really looking to clarify my own understanding of this scripture.

fair enough

I agree that Jesus is the gate to salvation. I agree that that gate is not the same gate as at Caesari Phillipi.

But it doesn’t say that SATAN will not prevail against the church, it says that the gates will not hold against the church’s attack against the gates.

If the Lord meant that satan would not prevail against the church, why didn’t he say so instead of saying that the gates would not prevail (hold) against the church’s attack?

Gates prevail by being impenetrable, not by getting up and attacking. People attack, not gates. So not prevailing, for a gate, means that it WAS penetrable.

The gate (as a barrier) did not prevail-- it opened up and allowed people through.

If satan was to come out of the gates, then it should say that satan would not prevail. It doesn’t say that.

Actually, I have no problem with this at all. I think you are trying to make it one or the other. Do you think that is so?

The struggle between good and evil is bi-directional.

I agree that the Lord turned the flock over to Peter.

Well then, I have no idea how you can believe that the authority that Jesus gave to Peter was lost. The evidence is clear that it has survived.

 

[mfbukowski]

It is not that the Church will conquor evil in as much as it will not defeat the Church.

Now, the idea that you put forth that it was Jesus proclaiming to the spirits in prison has one issue with that, that I see. It was not the Church doing it but Christ himself.

If the Church can be wrong, then it can be teaching errors or even be promoting evil. At that time, it is no longer Christ’s church.

But doesn’t your church believe in intercession for those in purgatory? That you can pray for them? I am trying to give you a break here because:

If it doesn’t apply to your church at all, then that strengthens the Mormon position totally, because that is what our church believes. Our church does work to help redeem the dead.

So in that case, with this interpretation, that verse would actually PROVE the apostasy. The true church is supposed to crack open the gates of hades, which do not prevail against it.

If the church which does this is not the Catholic church, it is the Mormon church, therefore the Mormon church is the true church.

 

[Jerusha]

Sure, Catholic belief in prayer for the dead and Purgatory are related to Mormon baptism for the dead, in that Mormonism is a pale imitation of Catholicism.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, I don’t remember being taught this.

Ok first off, there is no question that we believe that Peter was the first prophet, president, whatever you want to call him. He was the chosen leader of the church. This is central doctrine and frankly I am surprised you don’t remember it. I went to lds.org and typed “peter apostasy” in the search, and this is literally the first of a zillion hits which came up"

**"The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times
This dispensation of the fulness of times was foreseen by God as the time to gather, both in heaven and on earth. Peter knew that after a period of apostasy, a restoration would come. He, who had been with the Lord on the Mount of Transfiguration, declared:

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; …

“Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”25

In modern times the Apostles Peter, James, and John were sent by the Lord with “the keys of [His] kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times,” in which He would “gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth.”26

In the year 1830 the Prophet Joseph Smith learned of a heavenly messenger named Elias, who possessed keys to bring to pass “the restoration of all things.”27 – **Russel M Nelson, Apostle

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=32aa88f17feae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

Peter was chosen to return those keys to Joseph Smith. That is what made Joseph Smith leader of this dispensation. This is very basic doctrine. If Peter did not hold the keys, he could not have restored them to Smith.

We view Peter, James and John as the “first presidency” of the primitive church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1- I would like your reference to your friend if that is possible. I would like to pursue that further. Or at least find where he got his info about the temple of pan etc. Never heard that before

The friend is a moderator on another forum. I copied their post, with their permission, and pasted it in my Bible study program. I would be willing to give you that forum address but warn you in advance, I don’t believe them to be as tolerant as CAF.

You can read more about Caesarea Philippi and the temple of Pan from the library at Catholic Answers.

2- I am not disputing that Peter was the “holder of the keys” and was the chosen head of the church

No comment necessary.

3- Jesus WAS with his children - all days-- but the priesthood was not. During all that period, we knew he was God and Savior, we pray to him etc.

His priesthood remained with His Church. Christ knew men were weak and some would not be examples of teachings they taught. He did not instruct the people to ignore the men and go out on their own because he would remain with them “individually”.

**Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not. **

Catholics don’t seem to understand that for Mormons, Catholics are still in apostasy. I don’t for one minute believe that you pray to the “wrong Jesus” or that “Jesus is not with you” in mass, though you guys typically would accuse us of praying to “another Jesus”. He has been and is still “with you”. That scripture has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

We understand what you’re saying. We totally reject it without any evidence whatsoever. As I’ve said before, Christians were a minority at the time Mormons claim a great and total apostasy took place. There are no Jewish, Roman, pagan or Catholic writings that speak for or against a great apostasy.

I know your argument is, the Church covered it up. The Church has writings against heresies, since the beginning. The Church has writings against the reformation. There are no writings from the Church concerning this great apostasy.

What about those who apostasized? Where are their writings to justify leaving the original Christian Church? There are none.

Where are the writings of the Jews, who would have been justified since they were accused of killing the Messiah? There are none.

Where are the writings of the Romans, who martyred Christians for centuries in an attempt to wipe out Christianity? There are none.

Where are the writings of historians, pagans or anyone else, prior to the 1800s, that speak of such a great apostasy? There are none.

I’m not trying to derail the thread or change the topic. I will, however, deny any accusations of a great apostasy, as many times as it comes up.

4- You did not address the “gates of hell” interpretation I have put forth, that the reference was to the church’s attack on the gates of hades made by the savior just before his resurrection, as well as, from your point of view, prayers for those in purgatory. From your perspective, souls in purgatory receive benefit from prayers and are free to go on to heaven when their time is up-- the gates of hell do not prevail against those souls who are free to leave, due to your prayers for them. That is what that verse means.

The gates of hell was symbolic of the worst of the worse, even worse than the empires that ruled during time on earth, since it was an everlasting hell… If the gates of hell could not prevail against Christ’s Church, as He promised, then certainly the actions of “men” surely could not prevail.

While we have hope our prayers can help those in purgatory, there is a huge divide between purgatory and hell. Those in hell are beyond any help prayers can provide.

To us, it is vicarious work for the dead, which is basically the same principle you have in purgatory. We do something here which benefits them. What we do is different, but the principle is the same.

Again, as there is a huge difference between purgatory and hell, there is a great divide between praying for those in purgatory and baptizing the dead, assuming that is what you’re talking about.

I addressed the baptism of the dead in my first post.

My first post:

1Co 15:29 Otherwise, what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?

St. Paul did not say that he or any part of the Church baptized for the dead. He asked, what shall THEY do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

One thing to consider bukowski, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He did not give him the keys to the gates of hell, or the kingdom of the dead.

 

[mfbukowski]

Well then, I have no idea how you can believe that the authority that Jesus gave to Peter was lost. The evidence is clear that it has survived.

We would say that the evidence is clear that it was lost. Now it becomes a historical question, and then it becomes a question of who’s history you believe, which is beyond the scope of this thread, since it hasn’t been resolved at least since the reformation.

So if all the Catholic and Protestant historians battling over it have not figured it out, I think perhaps I would be beyond my depth.

 

[mfbukowski]

One thing to consider bukowski, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He did not give him the keys to the gates of hell, or the kingdom of the dead.

Nah, we would disagree. With the keys to the church goes the keys to the WORK of the church which includes work for the dead

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One thing to consider bukowski, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He did not give him the keys to the gates of hell, or the kingdom of the dead.

Very good point!

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[mfbukowski]

You can read more about Caesarea Philippi and the temple of Pan from the library at Catholic Answers.

No comment necessary.

Thanks for the link.

We have always believed that Peter was the key holder. All we have to believe is that ONE pope was not the rightfull successor, in all that turbulent history, and the line of authority is gone.

Let’s get back to the gates please.

 

[mfbukowski]

Very good point!

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Answered it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks for the link.

We have always believed that Peter was the key holder. All we have to believe is that ONE pope was not the rightfull successor, in all that turbulent history, and the line of authority is gone.

Let’s get back to the gates please.

I did get back to the gates in my response that provided you the link.

I also addressed how Christ addressed the fact that men would be weak, yet he said “observe and do as they say” because he knew he could protect the Church itself when it came to the teachings.

I’ve also pointed out the passage where Christ promised to be with the Apostles, who were the first men of the Church, ALL days even unto the consummation of the world. His promise was to His Church He had created and not mortal men He knew would eventually die, preventing them from being on earth at the consummation of the world.

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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok first off, there is no question that we believe that Peter was the first prophet, president, whatever you want to call him. He was the chosen leader of the church. This is central doctrine and frankly I am surprised you don’t remember it. I went to lds.org and typed “peter apostasy” in the search, and this is literally the first of a zillion hits which came up"

I see, this is your mormon missionary thread.

I haven’t been a mormon for 20+ years bukowski, and I left as a young adult. It was a different church then.