[ScubieNuc]

Excellent breakdown! Very thorough and clear. The only thing I would add would be a little more detail on the Matthew 16 account. Here is an excerpt of my own...

In Matt. ch. 16 at the beginning of the chapter the Pharisees and Sadducees were tempting Jesus to prove himself. Jesus warns his disciples against them.
Then in verse 13, Jesus asks his disciples who people say that He is.
Then in verse 15 Jesus asks his own disciples who they say that He is.
Verse 16 Simon Peter is the only one to apparently answer, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God." Verse 16 Jesus praises Simon Peter, and says that flesh and blood (or physical proof that the Sadducees and Pharisees sought) didn't reveal it to him, but "my Father which is in Heaven."

Verse 18 could possibly be read that Jesus is calling Peter the rock upon which his church will be built on, but another reading could be acceptance as Jesus as Christ without proof (faith) is what Jesus will build his church on.

Combine this with all of your other "God is the Rock" data, along with the fact that Mark, Luke and John only record Peter saying that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, and nothing about Peter being the foundation of the church, you don't see Peter as being the Rock that Christ's church is based on. Surely if this was the main imphasis of the conversation, the idea would have been re-iterated in the other Gospels or Epistles, but the rest of Scripture is completely silent on Peter being "the Rock."

Sincerely

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements and especially for sharing your testimony and research!

[Campion]

Mark, Luke and John only record Peter saying that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, and nothing about Peter being the foundation of the church

John doesn't record the incident at all, but attests to Petrine primacy in a different way (John 21:15ff). Luke also has a passage attesting to Petrine primacy (Luke 22:31-32).

Mark has none. Tradition indicates that Mark was closely associated with Peter. It is likely that his gospel was closely based on Peter's recollections, and would not have made anything special of Peter out of Peter's own modesty.