Posted on 03/07/2013 11:52:03 AM PST by NYer
Ping!
Gates are defensive. They are used to either keep someone in or keep them out. When one prevails against a gate, it means they are able to open or close it, regardless of what the owner of the gate wants.
It’s kind of exciting within the context of the gate in question.
Actually, I got my words backward. I meant to say that when the gate does not prevail...
How do you really know what the Lord means?
Because Our Lord promised the Holy Spirit would be sent to His Church to teach Her all things (John 14:26). And She has been sharing Her learning with the world since the beginning at Pentacost (Acts 1).
Also, consider that Our Lord meant something. Are your children free to interpret what you mean when you instruct them or do you explain it until they see what you are meaning to convey? So it is with Christ. The Church has been given the commission to teach (2 Cor 2:17) the world because the Words of Christ are not open to personal interpretation.
Did the gates of Hell prevail when Peter denied his Lord three times?
I clicked thinking this was a conclave thread..
re: “Did the gates of Hell prevail when Peter denied his Lord three times?”
The short answer - no. The gates of hell will not withstand the attacks of the Church. Even if you take the Catholic position that Peter IS the Rock upon which the Church is built, Peter is NOT the Church personified. Was Peter bringing an attack against Hell at the moment he denied Christ? No. Was he even trying to? I don’t think so. He was falling to the temptation of fear and cowardice. He was the one under attack.
Also, remember that Jesus told him already that this was going to happen, but that Peter would eventually be reconciled with his Lord.
Maybe I’m not sure what you are getting at, but those are my thoughts on your question.
I suppose my thoughts are that Peter is NOT the Rock upon which the Church is built. That Rock is Christ. And He is the Church personified. Without Him (and His sacrifice) there would be no Church. The Church could survive without Peter and there is no mention of any successors to the Apostles after they had deceased. Certainly no successor to the chair of Peter or a Pope. Paul considered himself no less equal than Peter. The very idea of a papacy is anti-Biblical as well as anything suggesting that anyone other than Christ is the foundation of the Church.
No, they did not. Jesus, recognizing Peter's human frailty , gives him the opportunity to restore his fidelity. In John 21, following the Resurrection, we find the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. Simon Peter tells the disciples that he is going fishing and they decide to go along with him. They return to shore around dawn and see a man standing on the shore. He asks if they have caught anything. He then tells them to cast their net over the right side of the boat and they will find something. The catch is so large they are unable to pull in the net. When they get to shore they find a charcoal fire with fish on it and bread. The man instructs them to bring some of their fish. The stranger on the shore tells them to "Come, have breakfast!"
After breakfast, Jesus says to Peter:
“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.i
3 times Peter denied Jesus after being with Jesus 3 years. On the 3rd visit since His resurrection, He asks Peter 3 times "Do you love Me? 3 times, Peter said he loved him. This was the 3rd time and only time He appeared at Galilee; just as the Scripture said.
Notice, too, the charcoal fire, that appears at the time of Peter's denial and again at Peter's acceptance. With God, there are no coincidences. Jesus broke him with the 3rd time and Peter was grieved; brought low by the Lord, now Peter is ready to serve and what a service He did. As you continue with John 21, Jesus predicts how Peter's faith will be tested.
Amen, amen, I say to you,j when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”
The Apostle and first "Bishop of Rome", Peter, was imprisoned, tortured, and crucified in Rome in 64 CE under the Roman emperor, Nero. Some scholars set the date at October 13, 64 CE. The earliest documented mention of Peter's death is in a letter from Clement, bishop of Rome (AD 88-97), to the Corinthians. It is in "The Acts of Peter" (2nd century CE), that we find the story of Peter being crucified upside-down, supposedly at Peter's request, because he was "unworthy to die in the same manner as my Lord."
re: “I suppose my thoughts are that Peter is NOT the Rock upon which the Church is built. That Rock is Christ. And He is the Church personified. Without Him (and His sacrifice) there would be no Church. The Church could survive without Peter and there is no mention of any successors to the Apostles after they had deceased. Certainly no successor to the chair of Peter or a Pope. Paul considered himself no less equal than Peter. The very idea of a papacy is anti-Biblical as well as anything suggesting that anyone other than Christ is the foundation of the Church.”
I completely agree with your statment above. I am not Catholic and though I believe Peter to have been a great influence on the early church - I agree with you that he was not the “Rock” Jesus spoke about. I guess I am confused about your orignial question about the getes of Hell prevailing in Peter’s denial.
Did Satan succeed in tempting Peter to deny his Lord? Yes. The Gates of Hell prevailed against Peter. Jesus withstood every temptation. He withstood the Gates of Hell. He is worthy to be called the Rock upon which the Church is founded.
There are precedents for leadership succession in the Old Testament.
An example:
"Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses". Deut. 34:9
Jesus refers to the "chair of Moses" (a precedent for the chair of Peter) in Matthew 23.
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not." Matthew 23:1-3
Jesus is the cornerstone; the apostles (led by Peter) were the foundations.
"Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone..." Eph. 2:20
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations: and in them the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev. 21:14
"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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19
The keys were given to Peter, not Paul. Stewardship is passed to each successor of Peter in his turn.
The context of prevail in this case could be restated as “prevail in the end” or “ultimately over come”.
You’re projecting on to this verse more what I would call wishful thinking far beyond it’s meaning.
It’s like those that claim faith alone saves. That works play no part in your salvation. It’s special level of ignorant with blinders on.
An analogy would be the allies in WWII. They didn’t win every battle but the axis didn’t ultimately prevail.
The prophesy of Daniel 2 is important here.
Daniel 2
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed:
Why would the Lord have to tell us that there will be a kingdom set up in the latter days that won’t be destroyed if weren’t possible for it to be destroyed in the first place?
In other words, if the kingdom of God is the Church and as you claim it can’t be destroyed, then why does the Lord have to tell us that in the latter days, long after the Catholic Church was created, that He will set up a kingdom that can’t be destroyed?
This only makes my point that there ONLY twelve apostles. There is nothing to say keys were not given to the other eleven apostles. It only makes sense if each of them represents a wall and each had a gate which would require a key. Our jury of twelve will each have a hand in the binding in Heaven and earth. There is no room for for succession in this instance. In Joshuas' case someone had to finish the journey that Moses had started. Moses, as you recall, was not allowed to enter the Promised Land.
The gates of hell/hades didn’t prevail, the righteous dead there were freed by Jesus Christ.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Well, I can see that you aren't a Catholic. Are you a Seventh-day Adventist?
If not, would you mind telling us what denomination you are affiiated with?
Also, since "Daniel 2" does not say that "the latter days are long after the Catholic Church was created", and in fact that is not written or defined like that anywhere in the Bible, you are obviously basing that inference on some private interpretation that is not really stated like that anywhere in the Bible.
Could you explain where you did get that interpretation from, and exactly what you are basing it on?
I'll try to check back tomorrow for your response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.