"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
"What’s more in Paul’s epistles, four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."
Yeah but it's ONE verse for cripes sake! You don't build an entire church on one verse. Well you do but sensible men do not. It makes more sense to me that Christ was speaking to Peter as one of the Twelve and upon these Twelve he would build his church.
Which in fact is what he indeed did do!
He would not make Peter pope over the other eleven. It does not hold with what he did in his earthly ministry. It does not hold with Old Testament typology. God forbade the Hebrews from having a King. He allowed it finally with Saul but it caused all kinds of trouble and never ... never worked. Even great Solomon ended his days in idol wordhip and sin.
The RC church has a pope because men always corrupt the ways of God.
PS: If a papacy was on Jesus' mind it would not have been Peter at any cost. John was the stable one and the one closesf to The Lord.
Yeah! That`s what I call "word study"
Pure fiction, with no evidence to back this up. Unless you can produce an Aramaic book of Matthew, it's pure conjecture. The New Testament was written in Greek, and God isn't careless with His word. All scripture is God breathed. There is no other scripture to support Peter as the foundation of the church. None.