How did the popular perception that new arrivals in heaven are greeted by St. Peter come about? I mean, how could anyone think they could count on him to be honest about a lowly mortal’s status in the record book, after he betrayed Jesus three times?
He got past that 2000 years ago.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t he at the crucifixion with Mary?
Peter at the gates is derived from
Matthew 16:19
That pretty much makes Peter the gatekeeper.
To the second point: The story of Peter is often contrasted to the story of Judas. Each of the betray Jesus. However, Peter is able to accept forgiveness and is redeemed while Judas cannot consider forgiveness, despairs, and comits suicide.
Peter frequently appears as the most impulsive apostle, constantly blurting out stupid remarks and missing the point or even doing stupid things, (putting his clothes on to leap out of a boat into a lake to greet Jesus), but he is also portrayed as the apostle who placed the most faith in Jesus. For this reason, in the preceding verse, Jesus punned about making him the "rock"upon which He would found His church. (Leaving aside later disputes about the papacy, Jesus was clearly investing a great faith in Peter, as well.)
Actually, he Denied Jesus three times. Judas did the betraying. Apparently Jesus felt there was enough of a difference to make Peter his spirtual sucessor anyway.
I have never uderstood Judas’ consignment to hell for his transgression. Was he not fulfilling the word of God, and therefore his will?
The Church has not officially declared that any particular person, including Judas, is in hell.
I see. Thank you.
HPL: Dagnabbit; you’re right.
You’re right, it is not officially taught. But I think this verse is the clincher. If Judas ends up in heaven, any amount of temporary suffering (in purgatory, or anywhere) would be worth the ultimate benefit. The only circumstance where it would be better for him if he had not been born, it seems to me, is if he ends up eternally suffering. Is there any other logical inference (logical within the context of any Christian belief system)?
Judas’s worst sin was surrendering to despair, letting guilt drive him to kill himself rather than drive him back to Christ.
However, there are different ways of interpreting things.
That particular verse just may be Jesus saying that it would be better for Him if that betrayer had not been born, not that it would have been better for the betrayer not to have been born. Unlikely, I admit, but remotely possible.
Also, there are other interpretations of how Judas died- the Matthew passage indicating he hanged himself has also been interpreted that he went off choked-up. And even a suggestion that his death in Acts 1 might have been a murder ordered by the officials to shut Judas up. Again- unlikely, but intriguing.
Unlikely, indeed. I don’t see anyway to torture this verse into any interpretation where “that man” doesn’t refer to the betrayer. Perhaps the orginal Aramaic offers such flexibility, 'cause the English version sure ain’t doing the trick.
In a story by Jorge Luis Borges, Judas is the actual Redeemer, who is truly despised through the ages and who truly suffers for mankind. Jesus, on the other hand, is the expedient, the sidekick, the one who must be there to facilitate the work of Judas, who was the real sacrifice, who didn’t (as some Doper once brilliantly phrased it) merely give up a weekend for your sins.
Which begs the question:
Why does heaven need a gate surrounding it, or angels with keys to open the gates? Is it to keep people out, or is it to keep people in?
Euth
I imagine that the guilt of having betrayed Jesus could be considered worse then never having been born to a true beliver, even if that person was able to go to heavan in the end.
Alternatively, Jesus may have just been pissed at Judas when he said that, not passing divine judgement on him. He is human after all, when nailed to the cross he accusses God of having forsaken him. Since I don’t think anyone actually assumes that God really forsoke Jesus when he was dying, I think we can assume that the Jesus in the Gospels occasionally speaks out of emotion and pain, and that not every word that comes out of his mouth is absolutely true.
He was forgiven.
It doesn’t hav a gate as far as we know. Don’t confuse popular imagination with doctrine. We also probably won’t see St. Peter actually sitting there dressed in white with the Book of Life, either. Sorry, real life and/or death just isn’t going to be a Hallmark Moment ™.
You’ll have to excuse me, I thought it was all popular imagination.
Yes, yes, you don’t believe in Jesus or God or Heaven. We get it.
Actually, this has nothing to do with begging the question although it may prompt a follow-up question.
The imagery that Jesus uses in many of his parables and even his direct statements generally follow the traditions of the popular concepts of the time. Many of those beliefs were encapsulated, (or, perhaps, created), in a number of inspirational works that are generally known as intertestamental works (with particular works among them identified as apocrypha. A number of these works, generally written between 200 B.C.E. and 100 C.E., spent a lot of time and manuscript exploring the locations of the afterlife, (either for those rewarded or for those punished). These works sometimes contain elaborate descriptions of heaven and paradise or hell (or sheol or hades). Since these works were widely known at the time that Jesus preached, many of his descriptions draw on the imagery found in these works.
Most likely, the heaven that got “gates” was patterned after the houses of the wealthy or the buildings holding government offices. In that case, the gates would have been a “standard” feature causing no comment. They were “defensive” gates.
Heaven is a gated community – I knew it!
And Jesus said unto them, “It is easier for a Hummer to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God! But if you’ve got that ‘Don’t let the car fool you, my treasure is in heaven’ sticker on the back, we’ll make an exception.”