Yes, and all of that contributed to the truth the Scripture taught. So which denominations do you say the adversary is using to twist the words God spoke ?
I believe what Jesus said...word for word. I also believe we were given the Bible so that we can search all of the Scripture for the proper interpretation of the Bible. We let the Bible interpret the Bible.
There are thousands of denominations and sub-denominations who differ on how "the Bible interprets the Bible." For example, what is your eschatology ? Are you pre-millenial, pre-tribulation ? It must be simple to figure that out by letting the Bible interpret the Bible, right ? There are many other areas where the thousands of church groups disagree; are you the only one who is correct ? Which one is that ? I'm sure we would all want to be with the one who interprets the Bible correctly.
This way we don't build denominations on one verse theology interpretations as some have done with Matthew regarding Peter.
It was the Protestant Re-formation that based its doctrine on invalidating the logical interpretation of Matthew 16 so as to justify to themselves why they were rebelling against the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope. Did any non-heretical group in history prior to the Re-formation interpret Matthew and the rock like the Protesters ? Do you seriously believe the truth was hidden for some 1500 years until Martin Luther created a denomination ? If so, why is not his the only other denomination ?
An interesting Bible study on Peter is very revealing in conjunction with the word rock as used in Scripture.
The world has studied this in the original languages for almost two millenia; do you seriously think you have discovered something new that others have not already known ? If you are a Protestant you deny Peter is the rock. If you are Orthodox you see the scripture plainly indicates he is.
It is interesting to read the accounts in Mark and Luke regarding the same event recorded in Matthew. In these two other accounts, the exchange between Christ and Peter regarding the keys, rock, etc are not mentioned. However what is recorded in all three accounts is Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God. This is not to diminish the account in Matthew, but the main point in all three accounts is Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God. When you combine this with the use of the word rock you will come to the conclusion that the rock upon which Christ is building His church is Peter's confession....not Peter himself. That is what the Bible is emphasizing.
Anytime someone says "xyz, but" they are trying to subtily undermine "xyz." The Keys of the Kingdom and the Apostolic Authority to bind and loose that Jesus gave to Peter (and his Apostolic brethren) are critical for the next two thousand years of history; they are not just incidental.
Peter does assume a leadership role in the early church and no one denies that. The keys Christ gave him was the opportunity to be a leader in the early church....and this Peter did very successfully as we see at Pentecost and later.
Subtily diminish, and here comes the denial:
There were other leaders in the church as well so Peter was not the only leader. As you read Acts you will see James, Phillip and others in a leadership role. But we also see Peter stumble in the New Testament. Later in the NT Paul had to chastise Peter as he had stopped eating with the Gentiles. In Peter's own writings he referred to himself as a bond-servant of God. In Acts, anytime someone was healed, Peter was very clear to give the credit to Christ and not take any of the credit. There is a lot more on this, but you can do the research yourself. I believe if you do an honest Biblical search on Peter and the rock, you will come to the conclusion that the church was built upon Peter's confession and that the rock is Christ.
The holy catholic apostolic church is built on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus being the chief cornerstone, not on Peter's confession:
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
As people began to read the bible, like Luther, they recognized the gap between what the bible was teaching and what the Catholic Church was doing. Pentance, indulgences, the false teachings of Mary, etc.
So the claim by the rcc to have an exclusive claim on interpreting the bible correctly just doesn't wash. I can make the same claim against the rcc as you do against everyone else. Take away tradition and a large part of the rcc's claim to authority goes away. And regarding peter and the rock I know I'm not the first to do the research.
The question is do you just blindly accept what the priest or pope tells you or do you do as Paul tells us to try every spirit to see if they are preaching another Jesus?