Mormons: Doesn't the Great Apostasy theory teach that the gates of Hell did prevail?

[peeteyg]

I don’t think history supports a great apostasy happening in the Catholic church, and I don’t think the gates of hell prevailed against the church. If the gates of hell prevailed against the church christ instituted then jesus would be a liar. He is not a liar so I don’t think the gates prevailed. I think the apostasy that was occuring had to do with going against the original apostolic teaching from the apostles.

History does record many Heresies and Gnostic sects during the time of the apostles and definitely after. This is why paul went around to the churches writing letters to them concerning their beliefs, faith and practices. This shows that the church came before the bible because the letters from paul were written to churches. I can’t even name all of the heresies due to the sheer volume of them. The Catholic church had to seperate the word of god from the spurious writings of these heretical sects.

There was the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas and many more. Many Catholics fell under the spell of these sects. I believe the Jehovahs Witnesses of today are a modern incarnation of the Arian beliefs of the 300’s. ( look it up) I really think the Great Apostasy really came after the Protestant Reformation. There are now some 30,000 + christian religions in the world and no unity among them. You can read the Early Church Fathers and see what the church really looked like. St. Polycarp of Smyrna was an actual diciple of John the apostle. You should read what he says as a witness of an actual apostle.

All evidence points to Rome. God gave us Free will and an intellect and the Holy Spirit to help us discern the truth. But as it says in John many walked away because they didn’t believe and jesus let them. This goes on in the world today.

(P.S. I hope that ParkerD shares what I wrote him in a Private message.)

 

[ricko]

Holly3278,
I want to thank you for your kindness here, even the smile which I appreciated more than you know. I hope you won’t mind if I go ahead and respond to Answersplease who certainly hasn’t followed your kind example but I suppose maybe someone can glean a meaning from looking at the questions brought up and the answers to those questions.

So if they agree with you they are considered kind and if they disagree with you and show where you are wrong then they are considered “not kind” by you. Is this how Mormons practice Christianity?

 

[Stephen168]

This is you placing your idea of LDS hierarchy over the early Church. It is an idea that has no scriptural, historical, or traditional support. In other words, just because LDS leaders say it so, doesn’t mean it is.

Exactly, another Mormon invention foreign to history. Especial when scripture tells us the position of Apostle was never to be ongoing; yet another Mormon invention.

 

[ParkerD]

So if they agree with you they are considered kind and if they disagree with you and show where you are wrong then they are considered “not kind” by you. Is this how Mormons practice Christianity?

Ricko,
The poster who had started this thread was not agreeing with me in the comment that was made that I responded to. I was being sensitive to the ability to say, in effect, “I can see your point of view–thank you.” This is why I made mention of the kindness shown in that post, and why I was sensitive that by answering the other poster I was taking the thread in a different direction than it seemed perhaps the original poster had intended, as exemplified by the response. One can disagree without being disagreeable, it is hoped. I think everyone can learn to do that. I see it happen often in these threads, and every time it happens it is a pleasure to see.

 

[peeteyg]

Concerning the Gates of hell and the Great Apostasy:

Himself but that certainly makes no sense. Our Lord is pronouncing a blessing on Peter. He states that he is blessed because God had revealed that Jesus is the Christ to Peter. Then Our Lord renames him from Simon to Peter. Our Lord spoke Aramaic, not Greek as some Protestants think. They usually like to point out that in Greek, Peter is named Petros and the rock is called petra. What they say is that Petros means small stone or pebble and petra is a massive rock. However, by the time that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written, petros and petra were interchangeable. It wouldn’t have made sense for Peter to have a feminine sounding name (petra) so St. Matthew put the masculine ending of the word for Peter’s name (petros).

In Aramaic, the language that Christ spoke…there is no problem. Kepha is the only word for big rock in Aramaic so the passage would be read like this, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Kephas and upon this kepha I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” The rock must refer to Peter because grammatically, rock must refer to the closest noun, which is Peter and not Christ (Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church).

Our Lord not only renames Simon to Peter but He also promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Also, Our Lord gives the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. This is an allusion to Isaiah 22:22 when God replaces Shebna with Eliakim. The key to the House of David is given to Eliakim as well as the power to bind and loose (opening and shutting doors to various people).

This position is commonly called Prime Minister or vicar. Our Lord in Matthew 16 is giving Peter (and his successors) the position of Vicar on earth. The chief cornerstone is Christ and the Keys ultimately belong to Him but what he is doing in this passage is sharing this authority with Peter. The last promise that is made to Peter is that, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.

 

[ParkerD]

Concerning the Gates of hell and the Great Apostasy:

Himself but that certainly makes no sense. Our Lord is pronouncing a blessing on Peter. He states that he is blessed because God had revealed that Jesus is the Christ to Peter. Then Our Lord renames him from Simon to Peter. Our Lord spoke Aramaic, not Greek as some Protestants think. They usually like to point out that in Greek, Peter is named Petros and the rock is called petra. What they say is that Petros means small stone or pebble and petra is a massive rock. However, by the time that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written, petros and petra were interchangeable. It wouldn’t have made sense for Peter to have a feminine sounding name (petra) so St. Matthew put the masculine ending of the word for Peter’s name (petros).

In Aramaic, the language that Christ spoke…there is no problem. Kepha is the only word for big rock in Aramaic so the passage would be read like this, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Kephas and upon this kepha I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” The rock must refer to Peter because grammatically, rock must refer to the closest noun, which is Peter and not Christ (Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church).

Our Lord not only renames Simon to Peter but He also promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Also, Our Lord gives the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. This is an allusion to Isaiah 22:22 when God replaces Shebna with Eliakim. The key to the House of David is given to Eliakim as well as the power to bind and loose (opening and shutting doors to various people).

This position is commonly called Prime Minister or vicar. Our Lord in Matthew 16 is giving Peter (and his successors) the position of Vicar on earth. The chief cornerstone is Christ and the Keys ultimately belong to Him but what he is doing in this passage is sharing this authority with Peter. The last promise that is made to Peter is that, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.

peeteyg,
It continues to amaze me that readers and students of the Bible would not see that when Peter said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, which was to say that the Person whom they rejoiced in being with was known by Peter to be the “Anointed One” spoken of by the Psalmist in Psalms 2:2 and by Isaiah in Isaiah 61:1-3, and that just as Isaiah prophesied of the opening of the prison by the “Anointed One”, that Jesus as the holder of the key of David would be the one who would “open” or “shut” the gates of hell, and could not be prevailed against as prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 22:22 and confirmed by John in Revelation 3:7. Here John even says “no man shutteth” and “no man openeth”, yet this specific scripture is disregarded and replaced by a singular word that is not used in the Bible at all–“Vicar”. Peter taught no such doctrine as that. He taught that Christ was the Rock, the corner stone, the stone which the builders had rejected and which it looks like more builders under the new covenant rejected yet again by replacing Him with Peter or by saying Peter was the “man” whom Christ appointed to be “the rock” in His stead. Alas.

It is such a loss to have lost that understanding from the scriptures! But it seems to be a loss that cannot be overcome, as far as I have been able to tell.

 

[peeteyg]

ParkerD, you are obviously a learned and intelligent Person. Many of the arguements you are using are in fact very powerful Cathlic arguements for Peter being the rock. I agree you must look at the OT typology and see what jesus was alluding to and what fulfills prophecy.

This passage is interesting to me because it is one of many passages where an Honor or priveledge is placed upon Peter by our lord. This is also a difficult passage for our seperated Orthodox brothers because it shows jesus had plans for Peter. He was to shephard the church until the Parousia, or second coming. This does not diminish the authority of any of the Apostles, or lessen the authority of any of the Metropolitans that sit in a seat of honor passsed down from the other Apostles.

In the Bible when someone name is changed it changes their status. Examples of this would be Jacob\Israel, Sarai\Sarah, Abram\Abraham etc. Jesus renamed Simon to Peter\Petrus\Petro\Kepha. Just pick the language you understand. By renaming him the typology is that his status changed. No other apostle received this change. When Peter told jesus who he was, it was after the other apostles not really knowing who he was. Jesus said it was god who made him aware of who he was and he bestowed the title of Rock on him. This is where Peter stands alone amongst the apostles, he could actually discern what only god (The Father) could reveal.

Jesus told Peter to feed his lambs and sheep, Jesus said that satan wanted to sift all of the apostles like wheat but he prayed that Peters’ faith (Singular) not fail and to strengthen his brethern. I could go on but you see my point. Taken in its entirety Peter and the chair of peter is Jesus’ representative on earth until the Parousia. Like I stated earlier, Jesus let many walk away because he knew who wouldn’t believe. I choose to stay and I hope all of do. AMEN