Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Katz, I'm not sure what you mean. The only way I interpret "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" is that nothing, absolutely nothing will stand in the way of the Lord's church from continuing on until He comes again. I haven't thought too deeply on any particular meanings. Please share your thoughts about this.
I think your interpretation is probably what the vast majority of Christians today would say. But, as I'm sure you know, idioms change over time, and to a first-century Jew like Peter, "the gates of hell" would have had a very specific meaning, and not the meaning most people today assume it would.
To Christ's Apostles, "the gates of hell" would would have simply referred to the entance to the underworld, the world of departed spirits, or the realm where the dead awaited judgment. Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church would have given the Apostles the assurance that death would not mark the end of a person's time to accept Christ's gospel and that it would continue to be taught to those who had died without having had the opportunity to hear it in this life.
I don't expect this to ring true to you, but within the framework of Jesus' culture, that really is all that "the gates of hell" would have meant.
Thank you for posting this. I am happy to see the RCC's official position on the Bible. I especially like #133.
The only issue I had was with #141. The church says that the Bible and the church govern the christian life. There is no support for this statement in the Bible. According to God's word, the Bible is to be our authority, not the church. IOW, it is the Bible that sets the standard for the church, not the other way around.
Katie
This is not true. Point out in Scripture where it says that. Besides, how could the Bible be our sole authority and set the standard for the Church in the first century when there was no Bible yet?
I think your interpretation is probably what the vast majority of Christians today would say. But, as I'm sure you know, idioms change over time, and to a first-century Jew like Peter, "the gates of hell" would have had a very specific meaning, and not the meaning most people today assume it would.
To Christ's Apostles, "the gates of hell" would would have simply referred to the entance to the underworld, the world of departed spirits, or the realm where the dead awaited judgment. Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church would have given the Apostles the assurance that death would not mark the end of a person's time to accept Christ's gospel and that it would continue to be taught to those who had died without having had the opportunity to hear it in this life.
I don't expect this to ring true to you, but within the framework of Jesus' culture, that really is all that "the gates of hell" would have meant.
I don't think so.
I believe this is another prime example of what happens when one goes outside of scripture to define scripture. The very reason for this thread.
Jesus death and resurrection as the One True God is the reason the gates of hell will not prevail against His church (his true believers). Those people will not suffer the second death (eternal death and separation from God). Thus, the gates of hell will not prevail...
God does not change, nor His word, and it means the same today as it did when the scriptures were written.
This is not true. Point out in Scripture where it says that. Besides, how could the Bible be our sole authority and set the standard for the Church in the first century when there was no Bible yet?
There was no book called "The Bible"; however, scripture was written by those chosen by God, was being distributed to the churches and preserved for God's timing of allowing scripture to be put together into the book we call "The Bible".
I believe this is another prime example of what happens when one goes outside of scripture to define scripture. The very reason for this thread.
Nobody's attempting to "define scripture." If you want to understand what something would have meant to a 1st century Jew, you can't do it by figuring out what it means to a 21st century Christian.
Quote:
God does not change, nor His word, and it means the same today as it did when the scriptures were written.
Oh dear. You really just don't get it, do you? This has nothing whatsover to do with whether God or His word changes. You seem to think Peter should have understood what Jesus said the way you do when instead, maybe you should try to understand what Jesus said the way Peter did.
Nobody's attempting to "define scripture." If you want to understand what something would have meant to a 1st century Jew, you can't do it by figuring out what it means to a 21st century Christian.
Oh dear. You really just don't get it, do you? This has nothing whatsover to do with whether God or His word changes. You seem to think Peter should have understood what Jesus said the way you do when instead, maybe you should try to understand what Jesus said the way Peter did.
I get it just fine, thanks. You are the one who does not get it.
And yes, you did define it. You said: Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church would have given the Apostles the assurance that death would not mark the end of a person's time to accept Christ's gospel and that it would continue to be taught to those who had died without having had the opportunity to hear it in this life.
This is absolutely contrary to God's Word.
God says in Hebrews 9: 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin,but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Jesus, our mediator, is coming the second and final time to declare judgment on all of us, dead or alive. Those who did not believe in Him in their lifetime will be sentenced to their second death (eternal separation from God), and those who believe/d in Him will be declared not guilt and will spend all eternity with Him.
Thus the reason the gates of hell will not prevail against believers (His Church).
I did not "define scripture." I explained how the phrase "the gates of hell" would have been interpreted as meaning by a first century Jew. This is something you're refusing to consider, because it runs counter to your own interpretation. In other words, you're deciding what you think Jesus meant and completely ignoring the fact that to Peter (the person Jesus was talking to), the phrase, "the gates of hell" would have meant something quite different from what you're saying it means to you. And because you are unwilling to look at any sources outside of the Bible to learn about the background of Christ's initial converts, you're going to continue to impose your own interpretation on the phrase.
Quote:
You said: Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church would have given the Apostles the assurance that death would not mark the end of a person's time to accept Christ's gospel and that it would continue to be taught to those who had died without having had the opportunity to hear it in this life.
This is absolutely contrary to God's Word.
No, it's just contrary to your understanding of God's word.
Quote:
God says in Hebrews 9: 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin,but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Jesus, our mediator, is coming the second and final time to declare judgment on all of us, dead or alive. Those who did not believe in Him in their lifetime will be sentenced to their second death (eternal separation from God), and those who believe/d in Him will be declared not guilt and will spend all eternity with Him.
That's right. We only die once and after that, we will be judged? Does "after that" mean "immediately upon death" or at "the final judgment"? Is Jesus going to cast the unbelieving into hellfire the instant they die or when He returns again? Or is He going to do so twice? You have one interpretation; I have another.
Quote:
Thus the reason the gates of hell will not prevail against believers (His Church).
Very easy to understand.
If everything's easy to understand, it makes you wonder why there are well over 30,000 Christian denominations today, all teaching how easy it is to understand.
I believe this is another prime example of what happens when one goes outside of scripture to define scripture. The very reason for this thread.
Jesus death and resurrection as the One True God is the reason the gates of hell will not prevail against His church (his true believers). Those people will not suffer the second death (eternal death and separation from God). Thus, the gates of hell will not prevail...
God does not change, nor His word, and it means the same today as it did when the scriptures were written.
"God does not change, nor His word, and it means the same today as it did when the scriptures were written"
Once a person crosses the bridge that the Bible isn't enough or that there most be something else out there that fills in the supposed gaps does nothing but opens the door for Satan to fill it with half truths and lies.
The historical standard for what is considered the truth for a religios body has always limited the definition to what "scriptures" was\is the Bible.
Unfortunatly, we are facing today a conservative effort to alter the definitions to change what was historicaly considered Christian as "Christian". More than ever "the wolf in sheep's clothing \ devil masquarding as light" as the bible describes those who oppose the truth is leading people further and further away from the truth which is the Bible proclaims itself to be.
Our only recourse is to not to lose our saltiness and understand that the open wounds of those who reject the Bible per historical claims will not agree \ forcefully counter. We are in a spiritual war where the two camps can not compromise.
I think your interpretation is probably what the vast majority of Christians today would say. But, as I'm sure you know, idioms change over time, and to a first-century Jew like Peter, "the gates of hell" would have had a very specific meaning, and not the meaning most people today assume it would.
To Christ's Apostles, "the gates of hell" would would have simply referred to the entance to the underworld, the world of departed spirits, or the realm where the dead awaited judgment. Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church would have given the Apostles the assurance that death would not mark the end of a person's time to accept Christ's gospel and that it would continue to be taught to those who had died without having had the opportunity to hear it in this life.
I don't expect this to ring true to you, but within the framework of Jesus' culture, that really is all that "the gates of hell" would have meant.
Thank you Katz for your explanation. I had forgotten the mormon view that the gospel can still be preached to those who have died. But, you're right, it doesn't ring true for me. I see no scriptural support. I haven't read what the ECF's have written about this, but when my long term sub positions is done end of next week, I will have more time to research. I really enjoy reading what the church fathers had to say. I know they are not inspired, but I think they can give a person good insight into the scriptures.
"God does not change, nor His word, and it means the same today as it did when the scriptures were written"
Once a person crosses the bridge that the Bible isn't enough or that there most be something else out there that fills in the supposed gaps does nothing but opens the door for Satan to fill it with half truths and lies.
The historical standard for what is considered the truth for a religios body has always limited the definition to what "scriptures" was\is the Bible.
Unfortunatly, we are facing today a conservative effort to alter the definitions to change what was historicaly considered Christian as "Christian". More than ever "the wolf in sheep's clothing \ devil masquarding as light" as the bible describes those who oppose the truth is leading people further and further away from the truth which is the Bible proclaims itself to be.
Our only recourse is to not to lose our saltiness and understand that the open wounds of those who reject the Bible per historical claims will not agree \ forcefully counter. We are in a spiritual war where the two camps can not compromise.
Amen Twin!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
