# Matthew 16:18 **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 3, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521 "2010-09-03T19:11:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/41 "2010-09-04T07:19:13Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat;12876864Looking through [this Wikipedia article] ([Apostolic succession - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession)), it looks like one source is Matthew 28:16-20: _Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”_ [/QUOTE] Ok, the end of the world would probably have been reported in the newspapers, so I agree that didn’t happen. In that verse, Jesus is referring to his authority. In 16:19, he says to Peter: _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._ So its the same book, but in the later chapter he doesn’t mention Peter. Not much to draw from that, the ‘keys’ aren’t necessarily the same thing as the authority to baptize, discipline, and teach the nations (discipline is probably the wrong word, but there might be some who think that’s what was meant). It doesn’t strengthen the case for Peter (and his descendants) being the one and only rock though. Very interesting though. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/42 "2010-09-04T07:36:05Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > That said, the interpretation that is given above implies that Peter was retroactively declared the major Apostle because he stayed with the Gentile Church. I am not saying I agree with this, although it is an interesting interpretation. > > It’s certainly not factual history. But its plausibility is demonstrative of why it’s hasty to call Jesus a liar. Even disregarding internal politics of the early church, there’s still problems of witness memory, lax standards of scholarship, etc. that can all result in a far different version of what actually occurred being written down. Well, I based a lot of it on Paul’s letters, which indicate that even after James, Peter, and John declared that the Gentile Church was legitimate, there were still people advocating that one of its teachings was incorrect: Paul taught that a Gentile Christian did not need to be circumcised or follow most of the rest of the Jewish laws. That’s the textbook definition of a Judaizer. The only extrapolation was that this remained a fairly large group in the Church of Jerusalem–as evidenced by Paul’s condemnation of the superapostles,which I would assume would be one of the originals. Heck, they even followed Jesus’s instructions to require others to pay for them. It’s really easy to make the story fit. The only part that had to have been altered was the idea that the Jerusalem Church actually accepted the Gentile Church–and that’s the direction I thought you were going–that the JC only accepted the GC after the fall of Jerusalem. My disclaimer was just to point out that I disagreed with that, but found it interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/43 "2010-09-04T08:00:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Well, I based a lot of it on Paul’s letters, which indicate that even after James, Peter, and John declared that the Gentile Church was legitimate, there were still people advocating that one of its teachings was incorrect: Paul taught that a Gentile Christian did not need to be circumcised or follow most of the rest of the Jewish laws. That’s the textbook definition of a Judaizer. This is entirely speculation, but personally I think that it’s most likely that the gentile church wasn’t so much “accepted” as that a truce was struck. In exchange for financial support from Paul’s church, they wouldn’t call him a false profit, con artist, nor otherwise denounce him. After all, notice that the restrictions on circumcision, etc. were only lifted for gentile followers. Jews (who would be following the Jerusalem church) were still required to follow all the rules (assuming my memory isn’t failing me). If the decision had been based on doctrine – i.e. an idea that Jesus didn’t care about hard rules, just whether people were kind and loving – then it should have applied to everyone. Even if Jesus had never told them about such doctrine as “it’s okay to be loose on the fiddly rules”, if they bought that St. Paul had been imbued with the direct revelation of all of Jesus’ teachings, then they’d have to accept the doctrine when he told them about it and (again) applied it to everyone. It seems reasonable to say that the decision was based more on real world realities. Ultimately, they had their church for and by Jews. If a gentile wanted to sign up to the real deal, he still could by getting circumcised. So ultimately, Paul might just serve as free advertising, they can always dump him once their church is self-supporting, and in the meantime he’s bringing sacks of gold once a year so all’s well in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/44 "2010-09-04T09:43:12Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > As best can be told, after Jesus’ death the church in Jerusalem was headed by James the Just. The gentile church, based in Antioch, was headed by Paul. Peter was likely among the higher ups in the Jerusalem church, but his position was likely raised to being “The Rock upon which I will build my church” in the literature that remains thanks to being the only major disciple of Jesus who changed sides to join the gentile church. By proclaiming Peter the head of the church of Jerusalem and the chosen successor of Jesus, the gentile church became the leader of Christianity, instead of a competitor with the Jerusalem church. > > What’s the gentile church? Actually I thought you might have been playing around and that I had been whoosed. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/45 "2010-09-04T16:46:09Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > > [@digs](#): > > > > Wha…? I think I’d also vote for an “Ask the Mormon” discussion, or better yet, to be more inclusive: a “post the weirdest beliefs of your faith” thread. > > > > As a Christian, I’d like to encourage each of us to step back, look at what we believe (or what we’ve been taught to agree to), and ask “ **Does this make _any_ sense?** ” > > Are you referring to the acceptance of the Bible as an accurate record of events? I’ve heard many people profess faith based on the Bible, but not as a factual depiction of events. Sort of a ‘spirit of the law’ instead of ‘letter of law’. It should probably be a whole new thread, but I meant that many of us belong to a denomination, or a church, or a “Faith Community” that believes some … well, some Crazy Ass Shit™. It just hit me as I read this thread: otherwise-rational people believe that, after he died, Jesus teleported across the Atlantic Ocean to North America to appear to some Native Americans who were actually Jewish. (The same Jesus whose entire ministry consisted of walking a few miles. Or did I miss the part where he levitated up to Norway to preach to the Vikings?) And my faith (generic mainstream Christian) has equally weird stuff: why would anyone take a faith seriously that has Cannibalism in it? A lot of Christians believe that a wafer magically becomes human tissue just before you… eww… eat it (the whole “Communion”-- or let’s be all hoity-toity and call it “The Eucharist”). Jesus has GOT to be shaking his head, rolling his eyes, thinking “Hey, guys, ever hear of a metaphor?” And the belief in excessive power and pagentry: I worship in a frickin’ cathedral with gold-leaf decorations! Has there ever been a leader LESS gold-leafy than Jesus? Well, maybe Buddha, and he’s been gold-leafed too. Whew. I feel better now. But I have no idea where I’d start a **“weirdest beliefs of your faith”** thread. The Pit would be great, but they’d just rake everyone who posted over the coals. And I’m not sure it’s a GQ. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/46 "2010-09-04T17:15:17Z")
> [@digs](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Because the premise of LDS is that Jesus did not found his (only) church with Peter in the Roman world, but almost immediately after his Resurrection traveled to North America, home of some of the Lost Tribes of Israel (a.k.a. the Native Americans), to do another set for their benefit. > > > [@](#): > > > > Joseph Smith claimed apostolic succession directly from Peter. > > Wha…? I think I’d also vote for an “Ask the Mormon” discussion, or better yet, to be more inclusive: a “post the weirdest beliefs of your faith” thread. > > As a Christian, I’d like to encourage each of us to step back, look at what we believe (or what we’ve been taught to agree to), and ask “ **Does this make _any_ sense?** ” Mormons also believe–get this–that a guy who was killed came back from the dead and turned out actually to be the Son of God who died for your sins. I’m not sure anything qualifies as weirder than that. 😉 To be a little more serious, Joseph Smith started the LDS Church based on visions and visitations. His claim was that first, the Father and Jesus Christ visited him in answer to a prayer about which denomination was correct. The answer was that the true church (and priesthood) had been lost from the earth and that it was his job to restore it. After that, over a period of years, Joseph was visited fairly regularly by various heavenly messengers. Moroni taught him things and showed him where the Book of Mormon was hidden away (because Moroni had been the last keeper of it). John the Baptist ordained him and a companion to the Aaronic priesthood, so that they could baptize. Peter, James, and John did the same with a higher form of priesthood and ordained them apostles. [Here’s a timeline.](http://www.prophetjosephsmith.org/joseph_smith_timeline) No one alive on earth could do those things, therefore they were done by heavenly messengers, who had those jobs in their stewardships. Hope that helps. I’m too busy these days to start a thread, sorry–I just started a new job. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/47 "2010-09-04T17:30:06Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > (Louise vs. Louis). For a second, I thought that you were quoting a COURT DECISION in which such a religious topic somehow was germane. 😃_- Jack_ PS: Intersting point in your post, though. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/48 "2010-09-04T17:37:46Z")
I think that since the word _ekklesia_ refers to a gathering of people (or a calling of people to gather), that there is no ncessary reason to interpret it as referring toa specific, institutionalized denomination or church. In my opinion, it would probably be better to interpret it as something like “movement.” “I’m going to call you ‘Rocky,’ and on this rock I will found my movement.” ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/49 "2010-09-04T17:48:31Z")
Well, the Bible also says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” John 21:25 So I fail to see any contradiction inherent in his alledged statement in Matthew 16:18 and the possibility that he might have founded OTHER “churches” upon OTHER “rocks”. (before or AFTER his death and resurrection, since the passage does not clarify one or the other). There has long been speculation about the “missing years” of Jesus…where was he and what was he doing between his youth and when his story was again picked up in his 30’s? Some think he journeyed to Egypt and/or India and took intruction from spiritual teachers there. Others assume he just farted around his own region and such was hardly interesting enough to write down. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/50 "2010-09-04T17:59:45Z")
> [@digs](#): > > It just hit me as I read this thread: otherwise-rational people believe that, after he died, Jesus teleported across the Atlantic Ocean to North America to appear to some Native Americans who were actually Jewish. > > (The same Jesus whose entire ministry consisted of walking a few miles. Or did I miss the part where he levitated up to Norway to preach to the Vikings?) > > And my faith (generic mainstream Christian) has equally weird stuff…[snip] > > And the belief in excessive power and pagentry: I worship in a frickin’ cathedral with gold-leaf decorations! Has there ever been a leader LESS gold-leafy than Jesus? Well, maybe Buddha, and he’s been gold-leafed too. > > Whew. I feel better now. But I have no idea where I’d start a **“weirdest beliefs of your faith”** thread. The Pit would be great, but they’d just rake everyone who posted over the coals. And I’m not sure it’s a GQ. Very true. The only difference between the weirdness of your beliefs and the weirdness of mine is that yours have more of a patina of time, which confers respectability–but has nothing to do with truth. Your miracles are all in the distant past, where they are safely distant. I have extra ones that are more immediate and therefore harder for most people to accept. No difference otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/51 "2010-09-04T19:54:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “I’m going to call you ‘Rocky,’ and on this rock I will found my movement.” “Yo, Jesus!” ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/52 "2010-09-06T21:27:34Z")
Off-topic, but **dangermom** : Congrats on the new job! Feel free to take time off from any and all messageboards while you get adjusted. I’ve got a friend who went from suddenly unemployed to numerous rejections to getting fired from the sucky temp job he took (!) … to just as suddenly totally employed by a great biotech startup! And now he’s bitching about how much time his dream job is taking! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/53 "2010-09-07T02:47:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re mostly right. _Kefas_ (oe Cephas) is Aramaic for “rock” and is what Simon the Rock is called in Aramaic. You’re also right that _Petros_ is a masculinized rendering of the feminine noun _petra_, but in this particulr passage, Jesus does not say _Kefas_, but does say, “You are Petros, and upon this petra…” The second use of the word just reverts back to its normal noun form rather than a name form. Yes, and Kefas/Cephas is used later in the NT witout translating. However I was thinking that Jesus was speaking Aramaic when he said it and that good ol’ Matt is giving us the tranlsation. It is of course entirely possible that Jesus could’ve spoken more than a smattering of Koiné since it was the lingua franca in that area of the Mediterranean. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/54 "2010-09-07T04:18:53Z")
> [@dangermom](#): > > Joseph Smith started the LDS Church based on visions and visitations. His claim was that first, the Father and Jesus Christ visited him in answer to a prayer about which denomination was correct. The answer was that the true church (and priesthood) had been lost from the earth and that it was his job to restore it. This right here is where I think the idea came from that Matthew 16:18 precludes Mormonism. The idea of the Church having vanished from the Earth implies it was defeated, and thus the gates of Hell did prevail against it. Back in my younger days, I used the same type of logic against the Pentecostal denominations that say that only people who speak in tongues are saved (and thus part of the real Church)–seeing as there was a lack of that practice for at least 1500 years. Also, as a response to **Sage Rat** ’s theory: I don’t know if Mark 9:38-40 helps or hurts. Jesus himself seems to be okay with other groups teaching about him, even though it bothered the disciples. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521/55 "2010-09-07T04:42:51Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > > [@dangermom](#): > > > > Joseph Smith started the LDS Church based on visions and visitations. His claim was that first, the Father and Jesus Christ visited him in answer to a prayer about which denomination was correct. The answer was that the true church (and priesthood) had been lost from the earth and that it was his job to restore it. > > This right here is where I think the idea came from that Matthew 16:18 precludes Mormonism. The idea of the Church having vanished from the Earth implies it was defeated, and thus the gates of Hell did prevail against it. LDS thought does actually address this, but I’m not sure I’ll have time to give you a proper answer. (It’s late, I work tomorrow, etc.) The bits I’m remembering best came from a CD collection of lectures I have, which doesn’t exactly give me an easy citation. LDS theology says that the early Christian leaders _expected_ an apostasy (Paul says “There must needs be a falling away…”, some other things) and that the gates of hell reference doesn’t mean that the Church can’t be lost from the earth. It will, however, prevail in eternity. Sorry I can’t be more thorough at this time. [Here’s a list of articles](http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai016.html) for you, though, should you feel like reading up on LDS thought about the apostasy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-16-18/552521.md?page=2)