Actually, not true for the first one. Greek was actually quite commonly spoken throughout Palestine, and especially in Galilee, in which a large number of Gentiles lives. Indeed, epigraphers and archaeologists have found nearly as many Greek inscriptions of all kinds from this time period in this region as they have found Aramaic and other Semitic ones. As businessmen (a carpenter and a fisherman, respectively), Jesus and Peter would both almost certainly have been fluent in Greek as an almost first language.
Couple this with the unlikelihood that Matthew's gospel was "originally" in Aramaic, which is largely based on unproven (and indeed, unprovable) theories about a "Q" document being the "original source" of the gospels, and there's no real reason to suppose that Matthew "originally" intended for there to be no gender issue with Matthew 16:18.
Indeed, one has to wonder - if Catholicism is correct, and if the "early church" (said to be Catholic) translated Matthew's Aramaic gospel into Greek, then why didn't they translate both presumed appearances of tsela as petros, to make it completely clear that Peter was the rock that Matthew was writing about?
The Bible wasn't written as the definitive Christian belief system. For the first several hundred years of the Christian faith, THERE WAS NO BIBLE. But the faith was taught by the Church. Yes, the Catholic Church, which gave us the Bible.
It wasn't until the 1500's and the heresy of the Reformation that a 'new' Chritianity was established.
A few questions:
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
It really wouldn't matter. You do not believe that "This is my Body" means 'This is my Body"
Let’s look at the Greek
Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa
So, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou
Again, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body."
Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mar 14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Mar 14:24 kai eipen autoiv touto estin to aima mou tsbto thv kainhv diaqhkhv to ekxunnomenon uper peri pollwn ekxunomenon
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.