“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?
Matthew 16:17Jesus 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, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
You know what else makes no sense. Jesus is talking to Peter and uses the personal pronoun of *you* in telling him he is *Peter* and then finishes off the sentence talking to Peter with saying *upon THIS rock*. If He had meant that Peter was the rock, He should have said *upon YOU I will build my church*.
He did not. Jesus never said “Upon YOU will I build my church”. Quite an oversight, I should say if that’s what He really meant.
Calling a person a *this* is a mighty strange way of addressing someone. The only way that sentence makes any sense grammatically is that *this* refers to something besides Peter.
That's how you guys get your perverted understanding of the scriptures...You insert 'other words'...
And here's an example of your 'other words'...
He said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock that you are, I will build my Church.”
First off, I'm not interested in 'other words'...I'm interested in the words that Jesus said...And I'm not interested in the words that you guys insert that Jesus did not say...And Jesus did not say, 'this rock that you are'...
You have false theology that you construct from adding words that don't belong there...
This becomes even clearer if we use “rock” instead of “Peter”:
Well sure it does, if you want to continue to pervert the God breathed scriptures to line up with your religion...
“You are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” What’s so strange about that?
What's strange about that is THAT is not what Jesus said...
Jesus said, 'You are Peter'...IF you must go with the Greek meaning, Peter means little rock...
Jesus said, 'upon THIS' rock...Jesus is the big, massive rock...Jesus was contrasting Himself with Peter so no one would get confused and claim a church was being built on Peter...Jesus didn't say, 'you are a Peter'...He said you are Peter...
If the name Peter was meant to say rock, we wouldn't call Peter by the name of Peter...His name would be Rock...Or little Rock...Maybe Peter was part Indian...Maybe he was called Peter little rock...
I'll stick with what God actually says...
JOHN 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
That is one of the problems with choosing Apologetics in preference to Scripture.
So what was the rock Christ was talking about?
Augustine understood what Christ was talking about
...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.
...In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. .... The Retractations Chapter 20.1.
John R. Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.
"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes."
That the church would be built on the knowledge of who Christ is, and that, that knowledge comes from God is consistent with other NT scripture .