"Other seeds fell on rocky [Gk: petrOdE, from "petra"] ground [...]" (Matthew 13:5)πετρώδης No it doesn't...It comes from Petros...And here's the definition...
petrōdēs
pet-ro'-dace
From G4073 and G1491; rock like, that is, rocky: - stony.
Rocky, stoney...Peter was a stone...Thanks for providing additional proof for that...Your other references come from Petra, a huge rock...So we know Jesus did not build his church on stoney ground...He built it on a huge rock...
and He wasn't slighting or insulting Simon as He did it (or would you suggest that Jesus would say "Blessed are you, Simon barJonah, [etc.]", right before belittling him by calling him a pebble, simply to contrast it with a Name for Himself?).
Of course Jesus wasn't slighting Peter...He complimented Peter by calling him a little rock...No other apostles got that distinction...Jesus did however contrast that little rock with the mountain of a rock...
Fine... I'll let the "rocky" example in Matthew 13:5 go to you, for this time. My point was that "Petros" (which is unknown in Koine Greek, in which the New Testament was written) is the masculinized version of the feminine word "petra", since the name was being applied to a man. Had Jesus applied it (hypothetically) to a woman, it woulnd't have needed to be changed.
But let me pursue your idea, here:
Of course Jesus wasn't slighting Peter...He complimented Peter by calling him a little rock...
(*wry look*) Mm-hmm. Quite the "compliment", here. I'm afraid that's sounding very much like an interpretation based on preconceptions and wishful thinking; this doesn't make even a modicum of sense. More, below.
No other apostles got that distinction...
No other Apostles got the distinction of being called "satan", either--but that wasn't a compliment, was it?
And lest you be tempted down the tiresome road of saying, "Aha! Thank you for proving that Jesus found Peter unqualified to be the foundation of His Church!", please
see my previous comment to editor-surveyor on that point.
Jesus did however contrast that little rock with the mountain of a rock...
Can we examine that supposition, for a moment? Because this is one of the anti-Catholic-Church claims which has me most profoundly scratching my head...
Are you claiming (as I've heard claimed before, by anti-Catholic-Church people) that Jesus renamed renamed Simon as "rock" for the purpose of pointing out Peter's SMALLNESS? Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus essentially said, "Blessed are you, Simon, [etc.]; you are rock, and upon Myself ALONE--the TRUE rock--I will build My Church"? (I note with some wry fatigue that the word "ALONE" is causing trouble, yet again... as is the case with the vast majority of anti-Catholic-Church claims and beliefs. The idea of "BOTH/AND" seems alien to the minds of people who can't stand the Catholic Church, for some reason.)
I submit to you that you're attributing a statement of almost complete NONSENSE to Our Lord. I can't fathom any motivation for renaming Simon as "rock", only to say, "Psyche! I'm going to build on a rock, but not on you, and I renamed you "rick" simply for the fun of the pun, as they say... and to put you in your place!" That would be bizarre... and nothing else in the Gospels suggests that Jesus would ever derange common sense and grammar and logic to that extent.
Let me put it another way: your comments seem to put a great deal of weight on the fact that Peter is a "little pebble" (though there's already a word for that--lithos, which is used repeatedly throughout the NT, whereas "petros" is used only to refer to St. Peter in the Greek OT [Septuagint] and NT--which should make one suspicious of the "petros = little pebble" hypothesis, as it is). But let me ask this:
why is it impossible for Christ to build His Church on a little pebble? Why would it even be un-"fitting"? Is not Christ known for taking meager materials and doing wondrous things with them? Is not "power made perfect in weakness"? On what basis do you (or anyone else) deny the foundation of the Church on St. Peter simply because some people don't care for the idea that Christ might build His Church on a "rock" which they find to be insignificant and unworthy? There's the $64,000 question, for the moment, I think.