The gates of hell shall not prevail against WHO?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Protestantism by and large is fill-in-the-blank religion, feel-good fluff with no meat…it reminds me of the old lady on the 1980’s “Wendy’s” commercials yelling at the counter: “Where’s the beef!!” in a gruff, nasty old voice lol…it’s all bun, no meat. I know what I was fed as a protestant and that when I briefly returned to Protestantism I was in the mood for spiritual rebellion and I was worried about the incidentals, not the truth. God bless you as well!

I don’t know gurney. They accuse us of being fed a lot of tripe, but I wonder if they ever thought of what they are being fed? At least we recognize, know, and understand the truth when we see it. I wonder if they ever will. I pray that they do. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[david40]

gurneyhalleck1:
“Look at the protestant reformation and you’ll indeed see the gates of hell prancing around like a bastardized river dance. Divorce and remarriage, contraception, homosexual “marriage” tolerance, turning a blind eye to cohabitation and an overly sexualized culture, apathy, vague spiritualism, and all the rest. There are thousands of denominations that can’t agree if left is left and right is right”

I like your statements especially: “bastardized river dance” and I am asking your permission to use that phrase when I debate again with the protestants about the gates of hell being unleashed by the reformation.

I wonder though…what the protestants will interpret the phrase “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church” since the church is invisible and each denominations claimed to be based on the bible and yet cannot agree if left is left and right is right.

Any protestants here care to comment about “the gates of hell” interpretation?

Anyway, thanks guys…I got better ammo now to talk about this particular subject next time around. I like this catholic forum because I can learn so much things in a very short time.

 

[Javl]

gurneyhalleck1:
“Look at the protestant reformation and you’ll indeed see the gates of hell prancing around like a bastardized river dance. Divorce and remarriage, contraception, homosexual “marriage” tolerance, turning a blind eye to cohabitation and an overly sexualized culture, apathy, vague spiritualism, and all the rest. There are thousands of denominations that can’t agree if left is left and right is right”

I like your statements especially: “bastardized river dance” and I am asking your permission to use that phrase when I debate again with the protestants about the gates of hell being unleashed by the reformation.

I wonder though…what the protestants will interpret the phrase “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church” since the church is invisible and each denominations claimed to be based on the bible and yet cannot agree if left is left and right is right.

Any protestants here care to comment about “the gates of hell” interpretation?

Anyway, thanks guys…I got better ammo now to talk about this particular subject next time around. I like this catholic forum because I can learn so much things in a very short time.

Oh how right you are,david40. I’ve learned more on this forum than all the books I’ve read and studies I’ve done on religion. There is nothing like communications. But, please don’t take what one Protestant says as the die, or mold, for all. There are many who are willing to listen and really learn the truth. It takes charity and patience, and they will listen. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Hisalone]

We are sorry you are having so much trouble understanding what “the gates of hell” mean in the passage in question. The posting below may help you understand what “the gates of hell” means. I posted another example but I guess you might have missed it.

The forces of evil will not overcome the Church
vbvbc.org/bible-verse/matthew16-18

Perfect example you will believe anything the RCC will tell you however unfounded it may be.
What are gates and what athey used for?

 

[Hisalone]

If what you say is true then please explain why there are so many different Protestant denomination,each claiming it alone has the “truth” and that it alone is “true” to Christ.
Thank You.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Please tell us why you are so willing to beleive a teaching so obviously false that you will call true.

 

[guanophore]

Can we say that the gates of hell have prevailed against the continuously divided protestant denominations since Martin Luther?

I am wondering, in real world scenario, what effect a church will suffer as a result of the gates of hell prevail against it.

Teaching error is what causes people to go through the gates of hell. The effect is division, and separation. We can see this in the Protestant Reformation, which was largely triggered by Catholic authorities teaching error and behaving in a scandalous manner. It fomented rebellion in the Church, and ultimately resulted in much separation and division. Satan rejoices over this, as he has been a murderer from the beginning. He loves to corrupt men, especially the shepherds, so he can scatter the flock.

 

[The_Ambassador]

My argument is not inductive at all.

Do you even know what an inductive argument is?

 

[guanophore]

Oh, we Catholics have gotten it right. It’s you who don’t understand. We have explained it to you, but you are either looking through it or right past it. “The gates of hell” are used as a metaphor, analogy, comparison, or whatever you want to call it.

I don’t think y’all are being fair to His Alone. Both things are true. The Church, being entrusted with the Truth, and armed with marching orders, is obligated to storm the realm of Satan, and the gates will not keep us out.

it is also true that teaching error will result in the faithful passing through the gates of hell.

 

[Hisalone]

Teaching error is what causes people to go through the gates of hell. The effect is division, and separation. We can see this in the Protestant Reformation, which was largely triggered by Catholic authorities teaching error and behaving in a scandalous manner. It fomented rebellion in the Church, and ultimately resulted in much separation and division. Satan rejoices over this, as he has been a murderer from the beginning. He loves to corrupt men, especially the shepherds, so he can scatter the flock.

Satan has bound people since Adam and keeps them bound within his gates. Christ came to set the captives free. The Church is to do the work of Christ and continue to set the captives free. How? By proclaiming liberty to those who are bound, praching the gospel.
The gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Wake up and set the captives free!!!

 

[spockrates]

What are the gates of hell?

Hi, His!

The passage in Greek does *not *use the word translated into English as Hell. Instead, it uses the word translated into English as Hades. Thus, one English translation quotes Jesus as saying this:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

That John would use the word Hades seems appropriate, since he was writing to Greeks. The question, then, might be asked: What came to mind to a Greek when he heard the word Hades?

In Greek mythology, Hades was the god of the dead. Hades was also the place where the souls of the dead were sent. To pass through the gates of Hades was, therefore, understood by the Greeks to whom John wrote to mean passing from life to death. Death is what would immediately come to mind when a Greek heard the words the gates of Hades (similar to the way you or I might think of death if someone said that a person *kicked the bucket). * Hence, John’s Greek audience would have understood Jesus to be saying this:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and [death] will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

To find out what Jesus meant, then, I suppose we would have to determine how death does not prevail against the Church.

 

[Dokimas]

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

I am not disputing about Peter’s role but the last phrase: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

The Catholic Church has been standing there for 2000 years and it will stand there until the end of times, there is no doubt about this since the Lord himself who wills it.

What about other churches?

Can we say that the gates of hell have prevailed against the continuously divided protestant denominations since Martin Luther?

Or, is there any protestant denominations that have been closing down since its founding?
I am wondering, in real world scenario, what effect a church will suffer as a result of the gates of hell prevail against it.

The Anglican is splitting because of the homosexual ordinations but the church itself is still standing.
The Catholic church suffered many scandals and corruptions in the past but it’s still standing.

Or maybe the gates of hell will not prevail also against all protestant denominations until the end of times?

The church Jesus started (the Cheif Cornerstone) built on the Gospel which is His life, death and resurrection. All true Christians are a part of that church. That church has been fragmented over the years with the biggest fragment being the CC.

 

[Hisalone]

Hi, His!

The passage in Greek does *not *use the word translated into English as Hell. Instead, it uses the word translated into English as Hades. Thus, one English translation quotes Jesus as saying this:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

That John would use the word Hades seems appropriate, since he was writing to Greeks. The question, then, might be asked: What came to mind to a Greek when he heard the word Hades?

In Greek mythology, Hades was the god of the dead. Hades was also the place where the souls of the dead were sent. To pass through the gates of Hades was, therefore, understood by the Greeks to whom John wrote to mean passing from life to death. Death is what would immediately come to mind when a Greek heard the words the gates of Hades (similar to the way you or I might think of death if someone said that a person *kicked the bucket). * Hence, John’s Greek audience would have understood Jesus to be saying this:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and [death] will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

To find out what Jesus meant, then, I suppose we would have to determine how death does not prevail against the Church.

Good discussion.
Or how the gates of death will not prevail.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, uh shucks, Ambassaderr, uh nevuh hurd uv an inductuv argyoument bufor! Shucks, what’s that? Maybuh you can uxplayn whut ut is for this novice! LOL…yes, your Elitistship, I do indeed know all about debate and argument. I will ask you a counter now. Do you ever write in anything larger than two sentences? I haven’t seen you make an argument yet; but you’re great at sitting back and criticizing others. :

Since you’ve turned this into a quiz show, I’ll take my turn now. Do you know what a logical fallacy is and how begging the question plays into that? :tsktsk::whacky:

Let’s take your post, #14, where you surmise that because a few individual churches in certain geographical locations in the early church fell apart, then that means the Church (capital C, Catholic, Church in its totality) has been toppled by sin before in general.

*"Many of the churches throughout the region of Galatia were overthrown by false doctrine.

Where today is the Corinthian church? They died out, and were overthrown by worldliness.

Are these churches still in existence? What about the church at laodicea?"*

The Church at Corinth was full of factions and there were disagreements from how women wore their hair at worship to the “I belong to Paul” vs. “I belong to Apollos” folks. The Church has always had factions and dissention. What’s your point? This is a given.
You take point A, and point B and assume point C is true based on the first two, which have no real relationship to the higher ideal, that because some churches have had heresies or evaporated then it must needs be that the entire Church has allowed the gates of hell to prevail. You assume that the presence of heresy means the entire church has a cancer about it. At least that is what your all-too-brief and vague post seems to conclude. Sounds inductive…hmmmm…

Do you even know what an inductive argument is?

 

[distracted]

I understand it to be The Catholic Church and all believers. Although the devil has been
successful in splintering the church, populating it with “black clergy” to destroy it from within, he has not been able to destroy it in 2000 years. The Catholic Church still stands because Jesus said that He will always be with it. And He keeps His word!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

i think the primary reason for it continuing is the Real Presence of Christ There…

christ is the only one who conquered satan… the only one who CAN… and as one saint said, the Church IS Christ…

 

[distracted]

The church Jesus started (the Cheif Cornerstone) built on the Gospel which is His life, death and resurrection. All true Christians are a part of that church. That church has been fragmented over the years with the biggest fragment being the CC.

I’ve known non-Catholics who were more Catholic than many Catholics…

and the way things are going these days… that isn’t saying much, is it???

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The church Jesus started (the Cheif Cornerstone) built on the Gospel which is His life, death and resurrection. All true Christians are a part of that church. That church has been fragmented over the years with the biggest fragment being the CC.

“You are the rock. And on this rock I will build my Church.” Did the Lord say that the rock was the confession Peter made or on Peter himself? It’s fairly apparent given the syntax of the sentence who the rock was, Peter. And upon this rock (the aforementioned person of Peter) I will build my Church. It may sound convenient to make the confession the rock because that would destroy the idea of the Church’s authority and we could all feel good with this fill-in-the-blank sola scriptura approach. The thing is, Peter was the rock, not the confession alone. The context tells us that, the majority of the Fathers tell us that, logic tells us that, and what follows about the binding and loosing gives clarity to it as well. Had Christ wanted to have a loosey goosey Church not built on the authority given to its leader, Peter, He could have simply said, “…for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in Heaven. And it is upon this truth that I will build my Church” or words with more clarity.

 

[spockrates]

Good discussion.
Or how the gates of death will not prevail.

Yes, His!



I suppose a Greek like my mentor Socrates would say there are two ways for death to not prevail against an individual: One is to cheat death, as Hercules did. Socrates tells how the Greek hero passed through the gates of Hades, made a wager with the god Hades that he could best his three-headed mounsterous hound that guarded the gates in a fight, and then won the wager and was allowed to return through the gates to the world of the living. But such would take the strength of a demigod! The preferred way, Socrates did say, is to avoid Hades altogether by choosing the path of a philosopher and seeking Wisdom with all one’s heart, strength and mind.

John the Baptist, on the other hand, might agree that Jesus is the God Wisdom for whom Socrates was really searching. And I’d hazard to guess that Socrates was to the Greeks what John the Baptist was to the ancient Jewish people.

Considering Jesus’ words, I can see how the gates of Hades (or death) might not prevail against you or I if we receive the gift of eternal life He mentions in John, chapter 3, and elsewhere. But how do you think the death does not prevail against the Church?

 

[Dokimas]

“You are the rock. And on this rock I will build my Church.” Did the Lord say that the rock was the confession Peter made or on Peter himself? It’s fairly apparent given the syntax of the sentence who the rock was, Peter. And upon this rock (the aforementioned person of Peter) I will build my Church. It may sound convenient to make the confession the rock because that would destroy the idea of the Church’s authority and we could all feel good with this fill-in-the-blank sola scriptura approach. The thing is, Peter was the rock, not the confession alone. The context tells us that, the majority of the Fathers tell us that, logic tells us that, and what follows about the binding and loosing gives clarity to it as well. Had Christ wanted to have a loosey goosey Church not built on the authority given to its leader, Peter, He could have simply said, “…for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in Heaven. And it is upon this truth that I will build my Church” or words with more clarity.

Are you sure you quoted the verse correctly?​

Mt 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.​

Two Greek words are used here: Peter = petros [Strongs - 4073]; rock = petra [4074].

 

[spockrates]

Are you sure you quoted the verse correctly?​

Mt 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.​

Two Greek words are used here: Peter = petros [Strongs - 4073]; rock = petra [4074].

Doki:

A thoughtful Catholic once told me that the Greek translators of Matthew’s gospel (which was likely originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic) did not use the word *petra *because it is a feminine noun, which would be an insult to the masculine Peter! One also sees this in modern Latin languages, such as Italian or Spanish, he added.



The explanation made sense to me.

 

[Dokimas]

Doki:

A thoughtful Catholic once told me that the Greek translators of Matthew’s gospel (which was likely originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic) did not use the word *petra *because it is a feminine noun, which would be an insult to the masculine Peter! One also sees this in modern Latin languages, such as Italian or Spanish, he added.



The explanation made sense to me.

If you look at all the times 4073 is used in the NT, most if not all is of Jesus or large rocks like:
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock <4073> that followed them, and that Rock <4073> was Christ.​

Peter was a vessel not the Rock which is Christ. Jesus built His church upon who He is and He used His disciples to build upon Him His church (which is all true believers no matter what church they go to - that is the true universal church).​

BTW, do you have knowledge of the original written words used? If you do or someone else does, maybe it could be shared. If not, we must use what we have.​

Taking all of the NT and the words of Jesus, it makes no sense Jesus would build His church upon Peter. It makes all the sense that Jesus would build His church on the teaching that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.