Posted on 04/03/2017 7:45:32 AM PDT by Salvation
Recently in my Our Sunday Visitor “Question and Answer” column came the following question from a Catholic convert, in reference to the traditional understanding of the Lord’s promise to the Church: the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matt 16:18).
“Before my recent conversion, my (protestant) pastor said that Catholics misunderstand the text about the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church. He said that it is silly that Catholics think of gates as if they were an offensive weapon being wielded against the Church. He said gates cannot attack us, they just sit there. Rather, he said, we are called to attack them. Gates are something to storm to enter a fortress. Thus, he said the text means that we are to storm Hell’s gates and take back territory from the devil and that the gates of Hell could not ultimately prevail against our attack.”
This interpretation has made the rounds in certain Protestant circles in recent years. In effect, it boils down to taking the word gates in a rather literal way. The pastor humorously pointed out that gates don’t normally go around attacking things. Such a comment elicits a good laugh, but humor or ridicule does not always disclose the truth. As it the case with many things, language admits of subtleties. Let’s explore the figurative meaning of the word gates.
The Greek word underlying our English translation is πύλαι (pulai), and gates is a fine translation.
However, Strong’s Greek Concordance and Greek Lexicon of New Testament indicates that in antiquity, pulai was also used to indicate authority and power.
Contextually, it would seem rather obvious that Jesus does not have literal gates in mind. First of all, Hell does not have iron or wooden gates. Second, because Jesus speaks of the gates as “not prevailing,” it would also seem that He has in mind something more than mere inanimate objects of some kind. As inanimate objects, gates do not prevail or lose; they just sit there. However, the powers of Hell can and do act.
Thus, it seems clear that our Lord uses the word gates in a figurative rather than literal sense. He likely means that the powers of Hell would not prevail against the Church, although they will surely try.
Finally, while there may be a certain pastoral sense in which the Church attacks the strongholds of the Hell in this world in order to gain back territory for the Kingdom, this is not really the best passage to make that point. Frankly, the Church should not seek to storm the gates of Hell! One storms gates in order to be able to get into the place they demarcate—but who wants to enter Hell? Should not the Church and her members seek to avoid going there? Is there not also an abyss that prevents those who enter Hell from escaping (see Luke 16:26)? Instead of hoping to storm the gates of Hell and get in, we hope that the gates of Hell are sealed off by the Lord and locked from the outside (see Rev 20:3)! There is no point in trying to enter Hell. Whatever is there is there permanently. There is no return from Hell.
Therefore, this rather trendy notion that we are to storm the gates of Hell should be set aside. Jesus clearly uses the gates of Hell as a metaphor for the power of Hell. Hell’s power will not ultimately prevail. God wins!
As for storming the gates of Hell—don’t do it! Our battleground is this world and the souls here for which we can still fight.
This is so obvious. Why do you belabor what nobody here has denied?
I don't accept your non-answer.
Do you still get hungry or thirsty?
It's a direct question to you and to any other Roman Catholic who would dare answer the question.
It's a simple yes or no.
I accept the words of Jesus that the consecrated host at Mass is the Body and Blood of Jesus based on my Faith in Jesus as the Truth. And that it is true food and drink for our salvation. Why do you question my Faith in Jesus?
Yet Jesus said, "36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe." John 6:36 NASB
The way to Jesus is through faith/belief in Him.
Jesus affirmed that in John 6:64. Peter and the disciples affirmed it in John 6:68.
You reject (by your statements) that Jesus left us His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. You do not have Faith in the words of Jesus even though the Apostles did, and the Eucharist and Mass have been passed down to us over 2000 years. You challenge Jesus that He did not mean what He said.
I reject the Roman Catholic teaching on this.
Jesus left us the Lord's Supper to remember Him and His sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of Me."
I've already posted a comparison of the RCC Mass from the Roman Catholic priest O'Brien and Hebrews 9 and 10 and have shown how the Mass is in contradiction of the NT.
The Catholic cannot offer a rebuttal based on the NT.
You blame the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ and accept your own personal beliefs or those of a protest church that split off from the Catholic Church.
I do blame the false teachings as espoused by the Roman Catholic church and it's contradiction of the Word. History shows the RCC was not the ekklesia(church) founded by Jesus.
Are you a former Catholic like metmom?
No. I am a Christian...a follower of Jesus Christ. I have never been a Roman Catholic and thankfully so.
Do accept other teachings of Jesus and the Catholic Church or are you opposed to all the teachings of the Catholic Church?
I accept the teachings of Jesus.
I reject a good number of the things espoused by the Roman Catholic Church as they are in contradiction to the Word itself.
I try my best to do God’s will and I honor the Mother of Jesus.
Ah yes...the dualism of Roman Catholicism. Nothing apart from Mary. We are not called to honor the Mother of Jesus anywhere in the NT. That's another of the RCC's false teachings.
You wonder why I reject much of Roman Catholicism? Your own statement explains a great deal of it.
You seem to act like you know more about the meaning of the Words of Jesus than Jesus.
I don't claim, nor have I ever claimed, to know more than Jesus. However, He has given us His word for us to study.
In the Bible we have what we need to know on how to be saved, how to have fellowship with Him and other believers, the leadership of the church, etc.
Any extraneous writings must be compared to the Bible to confirm or deny their accuracy. If we do this honestly a good number of RCC writings and teachings will be found wanting.
Just follow the blue ball and everything will be OK! (Maybe)
You say you comprehend yet you cannot apply it to your own reasoning! Would Jesus let a young man go away and die in his sins, unregenerate? Clearly He did! Yet you reverse the lesson and claim Jesus would not let the John 6 flowers walk away due to their lack of comprehending the spiritual truth Jesus was teaching using metaphor! Yes, so obvious even a cave man would get it, yet Catholics are so blinded with their sacramental striving which feeds their pride that they cannot see the simple reality.
Back when I was studying Catholicism in depth I read about a woman (a Catholic saint of course) who subsisted only on air.
Never ate for years (it was claimed) yet continued to live.
Why? I get discipline, controlling the flesh...but why do human beings always have to take things to extreme? Get so out of balance? I think it boils down to ego, nothing about God. Fasting is biblical. Subsisting on air - not so much. JMHO.
Exactly.
Works for me.
Hey, literal interpretations like what the Catholic church demand require that the actual physical cup and not the contents be the blood.
Jesus never said that the wine was His blood.
That’s merely an assumption conveniently made by Catholics.
Keep telling yourself how you listen to the words of Jesus every time you call your priest *Father*.
Hey, literal interpretations like what the Catholic church demand require that the actual physical cup and not the contents be the blood.
Jesus never said that the wine was His blood.
That’s merely an assumption conveniently made by Catholics.
Keep telling yourself how you listen to the words of Jesus every time you call your priest *Father*.
I know the question and it’s pretty easy.
Do you get hungry or thirsty after taking communion?
Yes, or no.
Nothing hard to understand about that.
ALL believers have Jesus dwell in their hearts by faith, not in their stomach by ingestion.
Ephesians 3:14-19 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith-that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Never ate for years (it was claimed) yet continued to live.
I don't believe any of it, no matter what religion claims it.
Yes, absolute balderdash.
Helped me see that Catholicism wasn’t the way to find God, too many extraneous distractions.
Reminds me of Pachinko
But then again, maybe not. 😀😆😄
The comparison between John 6 and the episode with the Rich Young man comes down to this:
In both cases, Jesus is speaking quite directly. He said exactly what He meant.
In John 6, He insists that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, because His flesh is “true food” and His blood “true drink”. True. Real. A hard saying.
To the Rich Young Man, He says that if he wants to be perfect, he should sell all his possessions and follow Him. Actually, literally leave all he had. Another hard saying.
In both cases, Jesus us telling people the actual truth. Sadly, because it is hard and they walk away because they do not accept it.
BTW, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion the young man would die in his sins unregenerate. That is nowhere in the text. It just says he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
The crowd in John 6 rejected Jesus’ instruction thst they must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, so Christ would raise them up on the Last Day. They rejected this Bread of Heaven.
The Rich Young Man rejected Jesus’ instruction about what steps he should take in order to more fully follow Him. He rejected Jesus’ counsel of perfection.
Jesus made these offers because He loved these people. He did not set this up as a trick question to drive people away to their eternal loss.
But clearly you cannot help being blind to the SPIRITUAL and foxusing on the carnal, as a dyed in the wool Catholic.
Even your own post betrays you willful mischaracterization: "They rejected this Bread of Heaven." Do you imagine there is wheat bread in Heaven? With you carnal blindnerss I would guess you do! So Jesus was a big loaf of Heavenly bread, to be swallowed into the catholic alimentary tract thus ingesting SPIRITUAL Bread. I truly feel sorry for you! You are incapable of recognizing the contradiction in that last sentence.
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.