'Gates of Hell' (Caesarea Philippi)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- What were the "Gates of Hell" that Jesus spoke of? Why did He name Simon the "Rock"? Jesus used this pagan shrine to show us how He would build His church-and what our part in it looks like… (Matthew 16:13-18)
Amen!!i do love all your teaching..
Pastor, Enjoying your videos so much! I have been to all these places and read the scriptures at each place. Your on-site teachings are so insightful, interesting and well given! I would love to go back again with your group!!! 😊
The Kingdom will be on Earth, not in Heaven.
Absolutely correct
Wow! Such incredible information and insight! Thank you for this.
this guys awesome
A small rock killed Goliath ❤️
Blessings pastor. Have been there it's always good to hear explain to us. Keep up the good work. Your reward is sure Have your self and family and Church family's ⛪️ a great Christmas and a happy new year.
1 CORINTHIANS 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: *and that Rock was Christ* .
This is greatness! Thank you!
Very good teaching
Great lesson !!! Let me know if you ever want to pray together 🙏🏽
Cosmic Geography. Dr. Michael Hieser.
Amen!
It makes sense when you say it that way, "permeate the heathens."
The holy group would have been looking upon pagans, but spiritual ones.
That means, because the Gospel speaks to the spirit, those who can receive it are already awake.
The pagans are awake and following a spirit, but the wrong one.
When and how did the course of the river change? Also when and why were the statues removed?
The statues were destroyed by the Byzantines, after the Roman empire Christianized under Constantine-and they subsequently built a church over the site of the Augustus temple. The river course changed when the water table dropped ~10m due to a massive regional earthquake in 749, that leveled almost everything in the Middle East. Blessings.
Absolutely true
"Father, meticulously I listened to your video, but I have a question for you. The roadmap of all your beliefs and teachings is the Bible. I see you hold it in your hands. Do you know that this Bible you proudly hold in your hand was printed by a bunch of Protestants in Mainz, Germany, around 1455? Do you, of course, know from older history and recent times that Germans were, are, and always will be experts at changing things to their own favor? On the other hand, do you know that the Evangelium that we, the Orthodox, keep in our hands is written as follows:
- The Gospel of Mark: Written around 70 AD.
- The Gospel of Matthew: Written between 80 and 90 AD.
- The Gospel of Luke: Written between 85 and 95 AD.
- The Gospel of John: Written between 90 and 110 AD.
Father, which of these do you think is the most original?"
---
I'm having a hard time understanding, So Jesus makes a declaration to Peter. Says "Peter your are Peter." Then looks over at this specific rock and says he will build his church on it and the gates of hell won't prevail against it. But then there is no Church here? But he is also talking about the body of the Church and not just this specific spot? Then to whom is Jesus speaking when He says, immediately after, "And 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." Is he giving everyone the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Everyone can bind and loose with an infallible authority to interpret dogma and make law or forgive? Am I understanding you correctly everyone is a little rock? Now you argue "Jesus said in the language written." This is quite unusual. Let's back up. You make a little bit of a joke about lunch and then talk about "skimming over the most important part of the entire debate [St. Peter being the rock of the Church]." Did Jesus speak the language the Bible translation [Koine Greek] was written or did he speak Aramaic? In Koine Greek Petros or Petra means rock or rock. With just a masculine or feminine suffix attached to the same root. Do you have a source where the Koine Greek states "little rock" or "big rock" I tried but I couldn't find it! Weird! My concern is, in the same way a magician uses distraction you used a joke to distract people from you admitting to skimming over a very relative part and kinda quickly revealing your belief. You approached the whole thing w/ a "this is why the Catholics are wrong" tone or you at least weren't very diplomatic in giving an educational experience explaining both sides of the argument. This is why I'm wondering was your lunchtime joke on purpose to distract and push your point through or was it just honest the timing of the joke in relation to this very important passage of the Bible.
The way I have been taught, and makes sense to me, is that the declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, that declaration is what He would build His Church upon. That in itself is the gospel message, it is the foundation of how we are saved. In the old testament, Jesus was the rock in the wilderness that delivered water to the Hebrews. 1 Corinthians 10:4: “They drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” To me, that is what makes the most sense, that the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, and takes away the sin of the world, that is the foundation that He builds the church upon. To me, saying that Peter is what they would build the church on always sounded weird.
Three verses after that, Jesus called Peter a Satan and a stumbling block.
Are you saying that Jesus intended to build His church upon a stumbling block?
Jesus build His church upon FAITH in Him, upon the truth that He is a God's Word incarnated and the Messiah (upon the DECLARATION of Peter), not on Peter personally, i.e. not upon fallible man and our human nature.
Jesus gave them (all 12 of them), as His disciples who knew who He is, the keys (authority) to bound/loosen on earth and in heaven, not to Peter personally, but to all of them, and that happened at the Pentecost.
@@MultiSky7 Jesus does not call St. Peter "a satan". In any translation even NIV. NIV chooses to use stumbling block. Why? Where do they get that out of the greek? Why do so many other older versions NOT use that phrasing? Your reply seems disingenuous, second sentence shows that. You didn't address a single question I asked. But you did create a straw man argument. Where do you get your information Jesus gave all 12 apostles the KEYS? Can you point me to a verse. You seem like a sola scriptura kinda guy. But even sola scriptura guys will agree Matt 16:17 Jesus is speaking directly to St. Peter. Not 12 people.
@@JerryLeeSchrader I don't blame you. I grew up mostly in protestant church. Mostly a charismata style worship. Created by Americans. When I decided to learn the History of Christianity is when it made sense. Whose authority are you learning under? Your own? A denomination? If you are learning through a denomination who created it? Most members of a fellowship have no idea. Take adventism. A woman in America created it... What? Ellen created a type of Christianity because she wanted people to eat more vegetables? WHAT?! Talk about heretical right? So I search what does the Catholic Church believe. Oh, Jesus created the Catholic Church? They have history from St. Peter all the way to modern day pope? When I looked upon these claims it makes WAY more sense that Jesus created the Holy Catholic Church and HIS House HE wants not divided. Thank you for your reply. I was right there with you. I pray you have your own realization. Look into the history of whose authority it is you are learning from. The Church Jesus Himself created The Holy Catholic Church or some American branch off of another American branch off who is now in an internal crossroads due to fatal moral flaws in dogma or practice? Talking specifically about methodist church. God Bless you Brother!
@@bryanholdren9043 I gave up on denominations long ago. I study the Bible, and ancient Hebrew. More than anything, I believe that God has a remnant in a lot of denominations. Over the years, I have come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, He died in my place on the cross for my sins, and it was enough. He rose again on the 3rd day and ascended to the right hand of God where He makes intercession for us. I believe Romans 10:9-11, that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
I believe we are saved TO good works, not with good works. My fiance' is catholic, and we have conversations constantly about this. Between us, it really seems to come down to wording. Both ways, we end up doing good works. I do good works because I love Him, and want to, not because I feel I have to. Like a relationship, I don't stay faithful to her because I have to, but because I love her and want to. That is what God did in my heart when I was saved, and what the Holy Spirit continues to do inside of me. It is continuous, and grows regularly. I find that many debates between denominations, are secondary issues, and just divide us instead of bringing us together. God bless you brother!
Isn't hades the Greek god, in charge of hell?
Is this the same place where baal went to the underworld and fought with Maat?
What scripture is that in?
Bottom line: The question was, and is, "Who was/is Jesus?" Peter, by revelation of God's Holy Spirit, answered correctly with the truth: Jesus was, and still is, The Messiah, God in flesh, born of virgin to become a sacrifice to redeem lost man from his sin and eternal damnation. The "TRUTH" of who Jesus IS saves man, not a church. And this TRUTH can only be revealed and comprehended by God through the Holy Spirit, and not through any physical church, man or denomination.
Almost correct, you say "The "TRUTH" of who Jesus IS saves man" this cannot be correct, although I can see how you come to that conclusion, however, it is Jesus Christ himself who saves, literally Him, not the truth of who He is, even Satan knew who Jesus was/is, and I came away from all the knowing all about Jesus Christ, to actually knowing my Lord who indwells me and all who have believing loyalty to Him alone and His kingdom, and that brother is a HUGE difference.
Jay, I have always considered the Catholic / Peter / Pope theology wrong, it just had to be, but I couldn't express why I felt that way. I suppose I saw the elitist attitude... to think that they are the only true church and all the rest of us that love Jesus are idiots. I began to see that the "rock" that Jesus build / is building his church upon is the aggressor, and not just a good defense. I like what you said, that gates don't attack. It is hades that couldn't withstand what was coming at it, but isn't it amazing that the only Bible that says it that way is the Syrian Aramaic. I think Jesus accomplished what he set out to accomplish and his kingdom is here now. Our hope isn't in a pretrib rapture (or the like) to get us out before the xxxxx hits the fan, no, our hope better be in our Savior who wants us to be ready and trusts only in him.
Great story, but if the Bible is so easy, why do we have several Protestant denominations, that all claim it’s easy and know the truth but can’t agree on many things.
Because it's not about believing all the same things that saves anyone, it is faith alone in the work of the cross of Jesus Christ, and God doesn't say, clean yourself up and come to me, just come as you are, even so just come, it's about believing loyalty to Jesus Christ, He alone is able to save, keeping the 10 Commandments will not save you, reading your bible, saying your prayers, going to church, trying to make the world a better place, social justice, and many more which I could say, they are all things which hold many back, and if you have total allegiance to Jesus Christ, you have been saved, you are saved, and you will be saved, those things are just things I mentioned, Jesus is not a thing, He is the way, truth and the life, He alone is our salvation, no denomination has it all right, and it's not about dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's, remember, it is God and God alone who's workmanship we are, He alone will give the increase.
@@andykanonik8935 I can agree with 99.9 percent.
Without a doubt we are saved by grace through faith, living faith that works through acts of love.
I couldn’t agree more, even if I was baptized daily, said 20 rosaries, confessed every minute, with out faith it’s just works.
On the other hand living faith, allows gods grace to work through us, making the so called works “not works” but a sign of love. I love going to church, Worshipping thanking him for allowing me to go to church, even that is thanks to him.
I take communion as he left it for us to do in memory of him, it’s not a work since he allowed me through grace to go and be a part of him.
It is actually a real blessing to go into communion, when Jesus was alive he ate bread and drank wine eventually through metabolic state it became his body and blood. Taking the sacrament works almost the same way now us eating the body and blood , helps us transform to be like him. Of course we will never achieve anything remotely close as creatures, but the fact he left us so many tools to be able to walk with him is amazing.
Just in case, nothing we do”nothing we do obtains initial salvation, after initial salvation our faith in him allows him to work through us.
The only place I see you being partially wrong is The Catholic Church has all the little perks to help you enjoy the full Christian experience in every sense. ( small perks just for the visual symbolism). Since we are made of spirit and flesh we can feed them both. In no way are we better, that would be saying the sides are better than the main dish.
Enjoyed reading your comment especially that you took your time to go more in detail, than just to leave faith alone and explain the process of faith alone. Thank you for your honesty and understanding
The problem with your thesis is that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The word Jesus would have used is Kepa, which doesn't denote size. Rather Matthew is using a common stylistic approach to his writing. Just like in English, repetition sounds clunky. On top of that Jesus just gave him a blessing then He says "Upon this rock I shall build my church" and then continues to bless Peter. So the rock in reference is indeed Peter. It wouldn't make literary sense to talk about Peter then Jesus talk about himself, or a confession of faith, then talk about Peter again. Most honest exegetes and biblical scholars agree on this: Jesus is indeed talking about Peter when he says "upon this rock I shall build my church". Now, that being said protestants can agree with that but they aren't obligated to believe in Apostolic Succession... Unless you keep reading on and see how Jesus quotes Isaiah. There's a lot to unpack... Unfortunately your thesis is a debunked excuse for protestants to deny the stewardship of Peter.
Few verses after that, Jesus called Peter a Satan and a stumbling block.
What an exceptional personal blessing.
Matthew 16: 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Are you saying that Jesus intended to build His church upon a stumbling block - upon fallible man and his deceitful human (materialistic) nature?
Are you saying that Jesus intended to build His church upon a man who He knew would denounce Him 3x times at the night of His condemnation - on the day of His crucifixion? Upon a man who fled and hide when Jesus was crucified?
If the answer to these questions is yes, than you're saying that Jesus is not pretty bright God, given the fact that He knows us and our inclination towards sin.
Jesus didn't say "on YOU I will build", but "on THIS rock I will build".
Because His church is built upon FAITH in Him, upon the truth that He is a God's Word incarnated and the Messiah (upon the DECLARATION of Peter), not on Peter personally.
FAITH IN JESUS IS THE BEDROCK OF HIS CHURCH!! and our salvation. Not Peter.
ps. I'm not Protestant, I'm RC.
What you were taught is the doctrine of man hungry for religious/political power that led to the separation of the church.
If someone was the head of the early church, that was James, Jesus' brother - the head of the church in Jerusalem. Not Peter.
Hi Fren! would you direct me to where Jesus quotes Isaiah? thank you in advance!
@@bryanholdren9043 Isaiah 22:22 "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; when he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open". Isaiah is referencing the Davidic king naming his vizier or Steward. Our Lord is referencing this Isaiah passage in Matthew 16:19, "I will give you the keys to 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".
@@antonioperito6607 awesome thank you so much for the connection! I will look into this further! I believe what Catholic Apologists say is most likely correct. St Peter was the head of the Church as Jesus made it.
@@bryanholdren9043 I'm glad to bring some clarification. Here's an easy way of showing that God intended Peter to be the leader: When Jesus asks the apostles a question who is it that responds the majority of the time? Peter. Look at Mark 8:29, Matthew 14:22-28, John 6:68-69. Peter is the leader of the apostles and thus the Church.
The "Gates of Hell" was a figure of speech, not a place; and certainally not Caesarea Philippi. Jesus used a alagory to explain a spiritual concept to simple people.
I thought historians agreed that this place was called the "gates of hell"
Wrong!
Like all Protestants they get this all wrong. First Matthew was originally written in Aramaic Not Greek.
So what Jesus actually said was, "Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha..."
There are no genders in Aramaic.
If you know your OT you would know Jesus was talking about Kepha , the Vicar of Christ with the power to declare dogma make rules and forgive sin. Isaiah 22:20-25/
you have what the office of Chief Steward was, and you don't
Correct ! The Petros vs Petra exegesis is poor Biblical interpretation. Peter is not the little rock. There is no distinction in Aramaic.
1 CORINTHIANS 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: *and that Rock was Christ* .