You can't believe the scriptures and believe that...I have yet to see a Catholic who doesn't change the wording of the scriptures to try to twist it into something it doesn't say...You guys either add to it, take away from it, or claim it doesn't say what it says...
Jesus never called Peter the rock...Jesus said, 'upon this rock'...
And any one can see that if the rock was anyone other than Jesus, it would have been the Apostle Paul...Paul was the one commissioned to build the church...Peter was wrong on doctrine and faded into obscurity as the church was being built, on Jesus Christ...
The Apostle John outlasted them all and was still revealing God's word long after Peter was gone...Perhaps it was John who was the rock...
One thing is for certain; that when one reads and believes the scripture, it clear that Peter was NOT the rock of the church...
“Jesus never called Peter the rock...Jesus said, ‘upon this rock’...”
___________________________________________________________________________
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/rock.htm
Objection 2:
“Jesus used a personal pronoun addressing Petros (i.e., “YOU are Peter”) but regarding the petra, Jesus used demonstrative pronoun (i.e., “UPON this rock”), in third person.”
Answer:
So what? How does that disprove the Catholic claim? Christ was addressing Simon directly, so He said, “You are [from now on] Peter.” He then used the demonstrative pronoun “this” to emphasize that He was building the Church on this very rock that is Peter, not on any of the other disciples (cf. St. Matthew 16:13). In other words, He said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock that you are, I will build my Church.” This becomes even clearer if we use “rock” instead of “Peter”: “You are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” What’s so strange about that? Christ used the demonstrative pronoun “this” because he was using a metphor (”rock”) that applies to Peter. Look, Christ did not merely give Simon a new name, he also made clear at the same time why Simon was receiving that new name, Petros. And the reason is that Simon is now “this rock [upon which] I will build my Church”!
Objection 3:
“If Jesus meant Petros to be the petra, there is no reason why he shouldn’t have said, “UPON YOU I will build my Church,” but he didn’t.”
Answer:
He could have, but the effect would not have been the same. Hello! The whole point was to change Simon’s name into Peter, and by saying “upon this rock” (as opposed to “upon you”) Christ made clear why the name was being changed: because Peter was now “this rock” upon which the Church would be built! The very fact that Christ said “upon this rock” and not “upon you” actually lends further credibility to the Catholic assertion! Interestingly enough, the Protestant author here has just refuted his own “Objection 5” (see below), in which he says: “It is actually more plausible, based on the context, that when Jesus said, ‘Upon this rock,’ he was pointing to himself.” No, not according to the author’s own logic. If Jesus were referring to Himself as the rock, He “should have” used a personal pronoun, and He “should have” said, “upon ME.” Should He not?
" 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.." You conveniently left that out, right?
Greek scholarseven non-Catholic onesadmit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthews Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greekan entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionarys argument didnt work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholars admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositors Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).And, you need to note that though the gospel was written In Greek, it was spoken in Aramaic. in Pauls epistlesfour times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthianswe have the Aramaic form of Simons new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isnt Greek. Thats a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). The word Kepha means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesnt 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.