The gates of hell shall not prevail against it

[spamlds]

In case you're wondering why I've been so active on here this morning, I have a bad cold and I'm unable to go to church this morning.  My "church" then is to share a few gospel messages to edify and hopefully share some points of doctrine that will help someone else.

 

I've contributed to a couple of threads about the apostasy and why the creeds were said to be "abominations" to God.  The apostasy was foretold in the Bible and we can show historically that it occurred.  Nevertheless, many defenders of the creeds get defensive and use out of context passage of scripture to say that the apostasy never occurred.  One of the passages they use is found, ironically, in Matthew chapter 16.  When Jesus asked Simon Peter who people said he was, Peter explained some of the misconceptions people had about Jesus.  Some said he was Elijah come again or some other prophet.  Then Jesus asked Peter and the other apostles the million-dollar question:  "...But whom say ye that I am?"

 

Peter replies for the whole group, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 

Jesus blesses Peter and declares that this testimony was from the Father by revelation.  If you go back and read, Jesus repeatedly told people that the kingdom of God had come to them, but he left it up to the audience to figure out who he was.  He wanted the Holy Ghost bear record of it to them.  Jesus said, "...Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

 

Then comes the scripture that sectarian critics and anti-Mormons use out-of-context to say that the apostasy couldn't have occurred.  It's verse 18 from Matthew chapter 16.

 

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

Our critics say that an apostasy could not have occurred because that would mean that the "gates of hell" prevaileed against the Church.  Very few people ever give that verse any thought as to what it means.  Even less thought is given by them to the first part that says that Christ was going to build his Church upon the spirit of revelation by which the Father had given Peter the testimony of Christ's true identity. 

 

I can't claim credit for this idea; that goes to Joseph Fielding McConkie.  McConkie asked the question, how does a gate prevail?  If you Google a definition of "prevail," you'll find something like this:

 

"...prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious."

 

How does a gate win?  It wins or prevails when it does what it is designed to do.  What is the definition of a gate?  Google tells us a gate is a "a hinged barrier used to close an opening in a wall, fence, or hedge."  A gate is designed to hold and keep things in an enclosed space, yet allow access to those who have power to open it.

 

A gate prevails when it keeps in the things that it's supposed to keep in and allows access to those who have authority to enter and exit the confined area.  A gate doesn't attack anything.  The gates of hell can't attack or destroy the Church of Christ.  They can't prevail against it.  In fact, the authority of the priesthood gives apostles and their ordained representatives power to move in and out of the gate.  Jesus continued saying:

 

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

The keys of the kingdom have power to bind on earth and in heaven.  They can open or shut the gates of hell.  The very keys of the priesthood have the power to free souls trapped in the spirit prison by virtue of its authority.  There is a clear link between Christ' preaching to the dead (John 5:25, 28-29, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 Peter 4:6) and baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) in the opening of the prison doors. 

 

In context, Jesus is saying that he is giving the apostles the revelatory power and authority to open and close the gates of hell.  Whoever believes their testimony and is baptized will be saved.  Those who reject it will be sealed up unto damnation.  Because of the eternal reach of the keys and the sealing power, even the gates of hell cannot prevail against those who died in ignorance once divinely-appointed messengers are sent into their midst to bring the gospel's light.

 

The apostasy occurred because members of the Church began to follow the teachings of men who did not possess authority, who taught strange doctrines like Gnosticism and Neoplatonism.  The apostasy did not occur because the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.  Ultimately, the Restoration brought the keys back to earth and even the gates of hell are subject to priesthood keys once again. 

 

The next time someone uses Matthew 16:18 to tell you that the ancient Church could not have fallen into apostasy, just read the surrounding verses with them and ask them to explain the meaning of each verse.  Then ask them what a gate does and how a gate prevails.  The answer is obvious and the meaning is clear once we understand that the keys have power to bind on earth and in heaven.  The only remaining question for them to answer is who holds those keys today.  Therein lies all the rest of the gospel's potential blessings.

 

[faith4]

I'm tired, but I will respond to this w/o posting an outside link to a Catholic site :)

[faith4]

And I've seen this argument on FAIR, and I was just as unimpressed by it as I am now.  A gate does nothing, it is a passive object, which can only be acted upon by outside forces.  Jesus was giving a figure of speech, not focusing on a literal gate from hell attacking the church.  What he meant was the forces of hell will be unable to overcome the church he builds on Peter, b/c he builds it on a rock.  See Matt 7:24-27 for Jesus' teaching about wise men who build their houses on rocks, and foolish men who build them on sand.   

 

And notice, these "keys" he gives to Peter are for binding and loosing on the earth and in heaven, nowhere does Jesus say will these "keys" affect the literal gate of hell.  Where that teaching comes from, that the keys for heaven and hell are the same?, is just wierd.  In ancient cities, keys were the hallmark of authority b/c the walled cities usually had one gate which could be locked for protection against hostile outside forces. Again, the gate itself does nothing on its own, it's passive.  The person who received the keys of the kingdom was the trusted steward to the king.  Essentially, Jesus is placing the kingdom of God, on earth, into Peters hands as the steward of the faith and building this faith on a rock...not sand.  The Pope's job is defend the deposit of faith passed down from the Apostles, given to them by Christ.  The Pope is the steward of the deposit of faith, he is the steward of the kingdom of God here on earth, to Christ the King.  That is what is meant by the keys.  Not priesthood holders can now control the gates of hell and go in and out.  Wierd.              

[spamlds]

I appreciate that you're a devoted Catholic who believes the Pope holds the keys.  I respect that.  Obviously, we disagree.  Mormons say the keys were lost and we can show historically that the primitive church fell into apostasy.  We've covered that on another thread on this site.  

 

Our interpretations of Matthew 16 are naturally different.  To us, the "rock" upon which the church was to be built was divine revelation.  In the context of the passage, Jesus asks Peter who he thinks he is.  Peter replies that Jesus is the Christ, something that Jesus had not yet taught publicly at that point.  Jesus says that--because he had not yet taught it--this truth had come to Peter by revelation from his Father in heaven.  And upon that rock--revelation--Jesus would build his Church.

 

Sure, I understand the play on words about Peter's name.  I read several languages and I'm familar with the nuances.  I've had Catholics tell me that Christ intended to build the Church on Peter.  I don't believe that's what this passage says.  It doesn't make sense that the son of God would build his Church upon a man.

 

The principle of revelation gives the Church power over the gates of hell.  Jesus said he would free the prisoners from the pit and prison (Isaiah 24:22).  He said the dead would hear his voice and live (John 5:25).  Peter said that Christ went to preach to the spirits in prison and that the gospel was preached to the dead (1 Peter 3:18, 4:6).  We know that ancient saints performed baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29).

 

These events are directly related to the keys of the kingdom.  Jesus gave the apostles power to have actions done on earth by virtue of the priesthood be valid in heaven.  Priesthood authority makes our baptisms on earth valid in heaven.  Those who hear the gospel among the dead may receive baptism by proxy in our temples, and those baptism free them from the "pit" and "prison."  The gates of hell can no longer hold in the captives because the Lord has given the keys to free them to living representatives on the earth.

 

The keys of the kingdom have power to remit and to retain sins (John 20:23).  This applies on both sides of the veil because of the binding or sealing power in earth and heaven inherent in the keys.  

 

There are many ways to debate this, but a sincere person who reads Joseph Smith's testimony and asks God if the things he said occurred are true will get a witness of the Holy Ghost.  God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and he saw them.  By this we know the Triune God of the creeds is in error.  John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and ordained them to the holy apostleship and conferred the true priesthood.  By this we know that the authority was lost from the earth and that the Pope does not hold the keys of the kingdom.  Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on Passover in 1836.  They restored authority relative to the dispensations over which they presided.    

 

The Holy Spirit bears witness that these events are real.  We know by the Holy Ghost that they are true.  The power that resides in the Church today is manifest in the lives of those who have committed themselves by baptism and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Speaking personally, I converted to Mormonism 35 years ago.  I had studied many different faiths, including Catholicism before converting.  Although I believe the members of those churches are sincere (in most cases) and they enjoy a degree of light and knowledge, there are many more blessings to be experienced when one is born again by the Holy Ghost.  

 

I hope you will consider that, although I write with boldness, I am truly a meek follower of Christ.   Baptism by proper authority (via the keys of the kingdom) brings a remission of sins and the companionship of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, also by proper authority.

[Guest]

And I've seen this argument on FAIR, and I was just as unimpressed by it as I am now.  A gate does nothing, it is a passive object, which can only be acted upon by outside forces.  Jesus was giving a figure of speech, not focusing on a literal gate from hell attacking the church.  What he meant was the forces of hell will be unable to overcome the church he builds on Peter, b/c he builds it on a rock.  See Matt 7:24-27 for Jesus' teaching about wise men who build their houses on rocks, and foolish men who build them on sand.   

 

And notice, these "keys" he gives to Peter are for binding and loosing on the earth and in heaven, nowhere does Jesus say will these "keys" affect the literal gate of hell.  Where that teaching comes from, that the keys for heaven and hell are the same?, is just wierd.  In ancient cities, keys were the hallmark of authority b/c the walled cities usually had one gate which could be locked for protection against hostile outside forces. Again, the gate itself does nothing on its own, it's passive.  The person who received the keys of the kingdom was the trusted steward to the king.  Essentially, Jesus is placing the kingdom of God, on earth, into Peters hands as the steward of the faith and building this faith on a rock...not sand.  The Pope's job is defend the deposit of faith passed down from the Apostles, given to them by Christ.  The Pope is the steward of the deposit of faith, he is the steward of the kingdom of God here on earth, to Christ the King.  That is what is meant by the keys.  Not priesthood holders can now control the gates of hell and go in and out.  Wierd.              

 

I didn't read that into spamlds' post (although I admit, it's a long one and I skimmed a lot of it).

 

But spamlds is correct in saying that Christ built the Church on the rock of Peter's revelation... the revelation given to him by the Father is what qualified him to hold the keys of the Church to bind and seal, etc.

 

Christ saying - the gates of hell shall not prevail against it - is referring to hell that is also called hades which is death without receiving such revelation that Jesus is the Christ.  Therefore, the gates of hell not prevailing against it means that the revelation that Jesus is the Christ can still be received by those who are dead.  For the Catholics - this is an important teaching that touches the Beatific Vision of children who die without the benefit of baptism and those who die without having heard of the name Jesus whose souls receive such revelation in purgatory.

[iguy2314]

Why should God build his Church on revelation?

 

Revelation was only one aspect of the Israelite people/faith. Prophets were extremely important, especially when the Israelites were screwing up, but there were also Kings, High Priests, as well as Prophets. Christ's Davidic/Messianic/sacrificial personhood fulfilled all three, he is King, Priest and Prophet.

 

Wouldn't John the Baptist have been a much more prophet-y prophet than Peter?

[Guest]

Why should God build his Church on revelation?

 

Revelation was only one aspect of the Israelite people/faith. Prophets were extremely important, especially when the Israelites were screwing up, but there were also Kings, High Priests, as well as Prophets. Christ's Davidic/Messianic/sacrificial personhood fulfilled all three, he is King, Priest and Prophet.

 

Wouldn't John the Baptist have been a much more prophet-y prophet than Peter?

 

Uhm... because it says it in scripture?

 

John the Baptist had a specific calling - to prepare the people for the Messiah.  Peter had a different calling - to hold all the keys.

 

Okay, this is what it says in the text in Matthew 16 concerning Peter (taken from Douay Rheims Bible):

 

13And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

14But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

 

Okay, note that in verse 17, Jesus said, man (flesh and blood) did not reveal it to Peter but the Father revealed it to him.  What is "it"?  The "it" here refers to verse 16 - the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  And verse 18 then continues that Simon is now Peter (the rock) for upon this rock I will build my church.  What is referred to as "this rock"?  All these verses build upon the reason Jesus named Simon, Peter (the rock)... "This rock" is the revelation that Simon received directly from the Father that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God... so then, the next phrase in verse 18 - and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it... what is referred to by "it"?  "It" here refers to "the rock" upon which the church was built - that is, the revelation given to Peter straight from the Father that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

 

Now, read the entire passage again... as a matter of fact, read the entire chapter of Matthew 16 with this in mind and see what you get out of it...

[bytor2112]

Why should God build his Church on revelation?

 

Knowledge received by the Holy Spirit leads to conversion and is the reason you often hear members of the LDS church say, "I know the church is true,..." This type of conversion is infinitely more powerful, lasting and compelling than creeds or even scripture. God and the truths pertaining to HIS Divine Son and our Savior are revealed by the Holy Spirit and that is the only way we can come to know the true and living God and Jesus Christ.

[The Folk Prophet]

Wouldn't John the Baptist have been a much more prophet-y prophet than Peter?

 

He kind of got his head chopped off.

[The Folk Prophet]

Uhm... because it says it in scripture?

 

John the Baptist had a specific calling - to prepare the people for the Messiah.  Peter had a different calling - to hold all the keys.

 

Okay, this is what it says in the text in Matthew 16 concerning Peter (taken from Douay Rheims Bible):

 

13And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

14But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

 

Okay, note that in verse 17, Jesus said, man (flesh and blood) did not reveal it to Peter but the Father revealed it to him.  What is "it"?  The "it" here refers to verse 16 - the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  And verse 18 then continues that Simon is now Peter (the rock) for upon this rock I will build my church.  What is referred to as "this rock"?  All these verses build upon the reason Jesus named Simon, Peter (the rock)... "This rock" is the revelation that Simon received directly from the Father that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God... so then, the next phrase in verse 18 - and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it... what is referred to by "it"?  "It" here refers to "the rock" upon which the church was built - that is, the revelation given to Peter straight from the Father that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

 

Now, read the entire passage again... as a matter of fact, read the entire chapter of Matthew 16 with this in mind and see what you get out of it...

 

Not to mention the petros/petra Peter/rock meanings.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

[iguy2314]

Not to mention the petros/petra Peter/rock meanings.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

Can you expand on this? The 19 year old missionary that explained this to me told me much of what this article pushes forth.

 

The "small rock" thing vs Jesus the bedrock doesn't really hold up when you account that (in Matthew) the Greek was translated from Aramaic, which we have documented records of from the early Christians like Eusebius of Caesarea. The world today has the Greek translations of the New Testament, but the scholarship behind the compilation/translation of the Bible shows that you MUST have a working knowledge of Aramaic to get a faithful translation. Otherwise, you have 19 year old boys telling the world that the Greek word for little stone was just a huge misunderstanding and causing lots of head shakes for linguists.

 

In Paul's epistles, five times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinithians we have the Aramaic form of Simon's new name - which translates into English as Cephas. That is NOT Greek. It's the Anglized version of Kepha (Kephas in its Hellenistic form). It means rock or bedrock, the same as Petra, which the young man explained to me made all the difference. It doesn't mean little rock or pebble. Christ is literally calling Peter the Rock of the Church.

 

Why does Matthew use Petros then? Because Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use Kepha in both places. In Greek, you encounter the whole nouns having differing gender endings, IE you wouldn't give Simon a female name. Overall, I was very much disappointed with the LDS explaination.

 

Much of it is explained here:

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

[The Folk Prophet]

Can you expand on this? The 19 year old missionary that explained this me told me much of what this article pushes forth.

 

The "small rock" thing vs Jesus the bedrock doesn't really hold up when you account that the Greek was translated from Aramaic, which we have documented records of from the early Christians like Eusebius of Caesarea. The world today has the Greek translations of the New Testament, but the scholarship behind the compilation/translation of the Bible shows that you MUST have a working knowledge of Aramaic to get a faithful translation. Otherwise, you have 19 year old boys telling the world that the Greek word for little stone was just a huge misunderstanding and causing lots of head shakes for linguists.

 

In Paul's epistles, five times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinithians we have the Aramaic form of Simon's new name - which translates into English as Cephas. That is NOT Greek. It's the Anglized version of Kepha (Kephas in its Hellenistic form). It means rock or bedrock, the same as Petra, which the young man explained to me made all the difference. It doesn't mean little rock or pebble. Christ is literally calling Peter the Rock of the Church.

 

Why does Matthew use Petros then? Because Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use Kepha in both places. In Greek, you encounter the whole nouns having differing gender endings, IE you wouldn't give Simon a female name. Overall, I was very much disappointed with the LDS explaination.

 

Much of it is explained here:

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

 

*shrug*

 

It doesn't much matter. Just an interesting point to me. It's not proof, and I certainly would not expect it to convince a Catholic faithful of anything with it.

 

If one accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet and the restoration of the gospel then it is a useful idea to help understand the LDS perspective. If one does not accept the restoration of the gospel then it's less useful.

[estradling75]

Why should God build his Church on revelation?

 

Revelation was only one aspect of the Israelite people/faith. Prophets were extremely important, especially when the Israelites were screwing up, but there were also Kings, High Priests, as well as Prophets. Christ's Davidic/Messianic/sacrificial personhood fulfilled all three, he is King, Priest and Prophet.'

 

Now that others have explained what "it" was why build on it?

 

What makes a prophet a prophet in the most practical and useful sense?  They get revelation and act on it. 

What made the difference between a "good" King/High Priests and a not good one?  The willingness to get revelation and act on it. 

 

Just about every 'good' person in the bible were considered good because of their willingness to get revelation and act on it

[Just_A_Guy]

Can you expand on this? The 19 year old missionary that explained this to me told me much of what this article pushes forth.

 

The "small rock" thing vs Jesus the bedrock doesn't really hold up when you account that (in Matthew) the Greek was translated from Aramaic, which we have documented records of from the early Christians like Eusebius of Caesarea. The world today has the Greek translations of the New Testament, but the scholarship behind the compilation/translation of the Bible shows that you MUST have a working knowledge of Aramaic to get a faithful translation. Otherwise, you have 19 year old boys telling the world that the Greek word for little stone was just a huge misunderstanding and causing lots of head shakes for linguists.

 

With all due respect, iguy, your dismissiveness of the Mormon apologia seems--if not disingenuous--at least a pretty blithe bait-and-switch.  Here's how your argument basically goes:

 

--Catholic apologists (if not you, specifically):  "The 'rock' in Matthew 16 was Peter.  We know this because in Greek, 'rock' is Petra and 'Peter' (or Petros, in Greek) is a cognate."

--Mormons:  "Well, actually, there are some nuanced differences in meaning between the Greek 'petra' and 'petros'."

--You:  "Ah-HA!  I got you now, you Mormon ignoramuses!  Jesus didn't speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic!!!!"

 

As long as your co-religionists continue to trot out the Greek roots of Matthew 16 in order to reinforce the Peter/foundational rock connection, you should expect Mormons and Protestants to engage the argument on those same (i.e. Greek) terms.  And if want us to believe that Jesus intended this identity of terms and meanings--without the nuances of the Greek--when He originally uttered the statement in Aramaic, then you must be prepared to show either a) that Aramaic in CE 30 had only one word for "rock/stone/bedrock", or b ) that there is an original, Aramaic transcription for that exact same utterance, documenting exclusive use of Cephas throughout.

 

Otherwise, your attempt to dismiss the notion of revelation and shore up papal authority by equating Peter with the foundational rock becomes a matter of conjecture.  Such an argument, made to a bunch of Mormons who are each prepared to testify that God has talked to them personally and that He has confirmed (among other things) that He did not authorize the papal line as recognized by Catholicism; will have a tendency to--pardon the pun--peter out.

[SpiritDragon]

Just a crazy idea to play devil's advocate... so what if Peter was the rock the church was being built on? On the hand it could be said that it implies clearly that the great apostasy could not happen, but on the other hand it could just as easily be argued it could.

 

As an example who prevailed in world war 2? The Nazi war machine steam-rolled its way to victory after victory before finally getting beaten back slowly. The Allied forces won the day, but not with-out losing a lot of ground along the way. So when the Lord knows that He is the head of the church and in the end His church will prevail, what difference does it make if the church required a restoration (regroup) before the war ended? Surely Jesus wasn't suggesting that Peter would live forever, but that the church would ultimately prevail. Peter himself even returned to pass the keys of the kingdom on to Joseph Smith.

[Guest]

Can you expand on this? The 19 year old missionary that explained this to me told me much of what this article pushes forth.

 

The "small rock" thing vs Jesus the bedrock doesn't really hold up when you account that (in Matthew) the Greek was translated from Aramaic, which we have documented records of from the early Christians like Eusebius of Caesarea. The world today has the Greek translations of the New Testament, but the scholarship behind the compilation/translation of the Bible shows that you MUST have a working knowledge of Aramaic to get a faithful translation. Otherwise, you have 19 year old boys telling the world that the Greek word for little stone was just a huge misunderstanding and causing lots of head shakes for linguists.

 

In Paul's epistles, five times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinithians we have the Aramaic form of Simon's new name - which translates into English as Cephas. That is NOT Greek. It's the Anglized version of Kepha (Kephas in its Hellenistic form). It means rock or bedrock, the same as Petra, which the young man explained to me made all the difference. It doesn't mean little rock or pebble. Christ is literally calling Peter the Rock of the Church.

 

Why does Matthew use Petros then? Because Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use Kepha in both places. In Greek, you encounter the whole nouns having differing gender endings, IE you wouldn't give Simon a female name. Overall, I was very much disappointed with the LDS explaination.

 

Much of it is explained here:

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

 

Okay, now that you have this understanding of Aramaic versus Greek...

 

Apply it (and what I have shared with you) to that piece of scripture, read the whole chapter, and tell me exactly what you came up with that it means pertaining Jesus the Christ, Simon's revelation straight from the Father, the Church, and the keys to the Kingdom.

 

Provide us YOUR OWN exegesis - what honestly and sincerely makes sense to you?

 

But stop for a minute... pray to God and appeal to have the Holy Spirit guide you as you read through the chapter, then read the chapter.  Then tell us exactly what you came up with.  I'd love to hear it.

 

And no, you shouldn't talk bad about 19-year-old guys sharing their own testimony of the gospel.  They are 19 years old with no masters in theology or what-have-you.  They are volunteers - fresh out of high school - and for most of them, it's their first experience away from their mothers.  They are not there to teach you the linguistic differences between Greek and Aramaic.  I will bet you my bottom dollar that not very many people - of any religious affiliation - know, nor have studied, the linguistics of "the rock".  The missionaries have a very simple purpose - to share with you the news about the restored gospel.  The rest is up to you and your willingness to appeal to the Holy Spirit.  Contrary to popular opinion (including around LDS circles), they do not try to convert people.  The Holy Spirit is the only one that can convert people.  They are simply there to share with you what they believe pertaining to the kingdom of God that you may be given the opportunity to seek out for yourself the truth of what they say.

[faith4]

Just a crazy idea to play devil's advocate... so what if Peter was the rock the church was being built on? On the hand it could be said that it implies clearly that the great apostasy could not happen, but on the other hand it could just as easily be argued it could.

 

As an example who prevailed in world war 2? The Nazi war machine steam-rolled its way to victory after victory before finally getting beaten back slowly. The Allied forces won the day, but not with-out losing a lot of ground along the way. So when the Lord knows that He is the head of the church and in the end His church will prevail, what difference does it make if the church required a restoration (regroup) before the war ended? Surely Jesus wasn't suggesting that Peter would live forever, but that the church would ultimately prevail. Peter himself even returned to pass the keys of the kingdom on to Joseph Smith.

 

This is a nice idea, SpiritDragon, but a "regrouping" is not what's happened as the teachings are vastly different.  :)  But I do believe, that in the end, everything will be smoothed out and we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief as we go home and put this is all put behind us :)  Our Father in heaven will not disappoint us and I greatly look forward to that day!

[SpiritDragon]

This is a nice idea, SpiritDragon, but a "regrouping" is not what's happened as the teachings are vastly different.  :)  But I do believe, that in the end, everything will be smoothed out and we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief as we go home and put this is all put behind us :)  Our Father in heaven will not disappoint us and I greatly look forward to that day!

 

I agree it will all be smoothed out, but I'm sure we differ in our understanding and belief about how that is to be accomplished. From my point of view things will be worked out through missionary work in the spirit world, vicarious ordinances for the dead being done for every one right on through the millennium and every knee bowing and every tongue confessing Jesus is the Christ.

 

I can also say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is indeed different from other Christian churches, but having read the bible several times I can find no church more encompassing of biblical teachings.

[Dorian]

Your interpretation is also inconsistent with the rest of the passage where Our Lord goes on to say "and I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven". One does not give the Keys to a statement of belief or a personal revelation, but to a person. Christ then is clearly talking to Peter and establishing His Church on him.

Likewise Christ promised to be with us "all days, even unto the end of the world". Not for a few decades, then disappear for nearly two millennia, and return again in Joseph Smith's time.  

[Guest]

Your interpretation is also inconsistent with the rest of the passage where Our Lord goes on to say "and I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven". One does not give the Keys to a statement of belief or a personal revelation, but to a person. Christ then is clearly talking to Peter and establishing His Church on him.

Likewise Christ promised to be with us "all days, even unto the end of the world". Not for a few decades, then disappear for nearly two millennia, and return again in Joseph Smith's time.  

 

Uhm... this doesn't make sense...

 

The passage doesn't say... "and I will give to it the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"... it says, "and I will give to you...".  So, obviously, the Priesthood Keys are given to Peter.

 

And there is no question that the entire passage is building on the reason why Peter was given the Keys to lead the Church - with the Church built upon Peter's authority... we've been talking about that the entire thread.

 

And yes, Christ promised to be with us always... from the time of Adam and Eve to Noah to Moses to every other dispensation of the gospel in the history of man all the way through the fulfillment of His Atonement all the way to today.  Just because a specific dispensation of the gospel is ended doesn't mean Christ "disappeared".  Peter himself handed the keys over to Joseph Smith under Christ's direction in LDS belief.

 

But, I understand why you would think that Christ only "appeared" in the New Testament onwards because of the Trinitarian view of Christ having proceeded from the Father.  This is another one of those concepts that is impacted by the Trinity vs. Godhead understanding of God.

[faith4]

Most of the misunderstandings between Scripture meaning has to do with our respective faiths different beliefs of the Plan of Salvation.  Your church (please correct me if I'm wrong), as I understand, believes that human history has been a series of dispensations begun by a revelation, through which God reveals himself to man.  With each dispensation, there eventually was an apostasy, men fell away from Gods revelation again and again.  Thus, God continued to begin new dispensations and revelations to call his children back to Him and His ways.  Jesus came, died and resurrected, completing the atonement.  Yet, like every dispensation, there was another falling away and apostasy.  However, this time, the next dispensation didn't come until the early 19th century, with a revelation to Smith, and that this time, it would be the final dispensation before Christ's Second Coming, therefore, your church has a gaurantee from God, that this time, it can't fail. 

 

Before I continue, I want to make sure this is what you believe, and this is correct.  Is it?

[Guest]

Most of the misunderstandings between Scripture meaning has to do with our respective faiths different beliefs of the Plan of Salvation.  Your church (please correct me if I'm wrong), as I understand, believes that human history has been a series of dispensations begun by a revelation, through which God reveals himself to man.  With each dispensation, there eventually was an apostasy, men fell away from Gods revelation again and again.  Thus, God continued to begin new dispensations and revelations to call his children back to Him and His ways.  Jesus came, died and resurrected, completing the atonement.  Yet, like every dispensation, there was another falling away and apostasy.  However, this time, the next dispensation didn't come until the early 19th century, with a revelation to Smith, and that this time, it would be the final dispensation before Christ's Second Coming, therefore, your church has a gaurantee from God, that this time, it can't fail. 

 

Before I continue, I want to make sure this is what you believe, and this is correct.  Is it?

 

Faith4, that's fairly accurate... just one correction on the bolded above.

 

It is not God's guarantee that this final dispensation will not experience a great apostasy.  It is a scriptural prediction that the people of this dispensation will not cause a great apostasy until the second coming of Christ.  Because, God never forces us to remain true to the gospel, it is completely man's choices incurred freely that causes dispensations to end.  Slight nuance but very important.  Make sense?

 

So, from an LDS standpoint... the implications of the "gates of hell cannot prevail against it" is very important to bridge the people in-between dispensations... because, as Christ has assured us - nothing that man does can ruin the Atonement and the work of the salvation of mankind.  Not Adam, not the evils of the people in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the evils of the people in the time of Noah, not the evils of the people in the time of Moses... all the way until the end of mortality.  Every single one of us will have the opportunity to hear the good news of our salvation and avail of the orindances thereof.

[faith4]

Faith4, that's fairly accurate... just one correction on the bolded above.

 

It is not God's guarantee that this final dispensation will not experience a great apostasy.  It is a scriptural prediction that the people of this dispensation will not cause a great apostasy until the second coming of Christ.  Because, God never forces us to remain true to the gospel, it is completely man's choices incurred freely that causes dispensations to end.  Slight nuance but very important.  Make sense?

 

So, from an LDS standpoint... the implications of the "gates of hell cannot prevail against it" is very important to bridge the people in-between dispensations... because, as Christ has assured us - nothing that man does can ruin the Atonement and the work of the salvation of mankind.  Not Adam, not the evils of the people in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the evils of the people in the time of Noah, not the evils of the people in the time of Moses... all the way until the end of mortality.  Every single one of us will have the opportunity to hear the good news of our salvation and avail of the orindances thereof.

 

Okay, but I thought I read on another thread where someone posted that this dispensation could not fail (my mind is suggesitn TFP, but I'm not sure), therefore you can truly trust your prophets and leaders, that they can't lead the church astray.  Or maybe I'm not picking up on the slight nuance. 

 

Anyway, my point in asking, was just to clarify what you believe the Plan of Salvation to be (only part of it of course) and how God has interacted with us throughout history.  It is very different than what Catholics, and most other Christians believe.  We have a different Plan of Salvation, and this is why some of the Scriptures are taught with different translations between our respective faiths.  I know you were once Catholic, so this shouldn't be a surprise to you, it would be difficult to not see the differences. 

 

This verse makes sense to you, as a "church" being built on revelation, which once this revelation is revealed, it can't be defeated, and can carry throughout time, correct?  We also believe that Peter did receive a revelation and spoke with faith, revealing who Jesus was.  And with this profession of faith, Jesus made Peter the steward of His church here on earth (the significance of the keys), to guide and protect the deposit of faith.  The authority bestowed on Peter, we believe, has been passed down through ordination, b/c Peter had the authority to "bind" on earth, so the authority he passed on to other men, by the laying on of hands, was "bound" in heaven.  I can understand your explanation, from your POV, but in the grand picture of what I know of God, however small it may be, it still doesn't quite fit right for me. 

 

Thank you though, I do enjoy reading these different threads and learning what you believe :) 

 

God bless!

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay, but I thought I read on another thread where someone posted that this dispensation could not fail (my mind is suggesitn TFP, but I'm not sure), therefore you can truly trust your prophets and leaders, that they can't lead the church astray.  Or maybe I'm not picking up on the slight nuance. 

 

Can't/won't.  I suppose there's nuance there. The end result is the same though. Which is what's important to understand I think. The kingdom of God will not fail.

[The Folk Prophet]

This verse makes sense to you, as a "church" being built on revelation, which once this revelation is revealed, it can't be defeated, and can carry throughout time, correct?  We also believe that Peter did receive a revelation and spoke with faith, revealing who Jesus was.  And with this profession of faith, Jesus made Peter the steward of His church here on earth (the significance of the keys), to guide and protect the deposit of faith.  The authority bestowed on Peter, we believe, has been passed down through ordination, b/c Peter had the authority to "bind" on earth, so the authority he passed on to other men, by the laying on of hands, was "bound" in heaven.  I can understand your explanation, from your POV, but in the grand picture of what I know of God, however small it may be, it still doesn't quite fit right for me. 

 

This makes absolute sense, and is the same thing we believe about the keys/authority, in that it's passed down etc. The only real difference is that we believe, over time, that this authority was lost to the world through apostasy. It's as simple as that.