Let me educate you.
Christ and the apostles did not speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic.
We all know the verse - "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter, and built his Church on Peter. But there is more to the story when we look beyond the English we find in the Bible. Many of our Protestant brothers say Peter is not the Rock, and they point to the Greek. In Greek, the verse would be "You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church." In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble. They will say that Jesus was the Rock, and the Greek shows the Church was not built on Peter.
But Christ did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. Once we get behind the Greek, we see the real meaning. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’ Kepha means rock in Aramaic. What’s more in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha rendered as Kephas in its Greek form.
So if kepha (Rock in Aramaic) means the same as petra Rock in Greek, why doesn’t Matthew say ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’, Instead of Petros, which means something quite different from petra? Because he had no choice. In Greek, you have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. So we know Peter is the Rock. And that’s the rest of the story.
Christ and the apostles did not speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic.
***
Wow, ignoring the original language that the Bible was written in?
And considering the fact that Koine was THE universal language at the time, you’ve decided to call Jesus stupid enough that he couldn’t possibly know BOTH of the languages spoken in Judea at the time. Especially considering that he named Peter after a word... IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE.
And you present this without ANY Scriptural basis?
Oh, sorry. IGNORING Scriptural basis, because the Gospels make special exception for when Jesus DOES speak Aramaic. As in, that’s an unusual thing. You’d think that they’d have mentioned somewhere that Jesus spoke ONLY Aramaic.
And for what, so you can make an assumption that just so happens to support what you’ve already decided. The very definition of confirmation bias.
Yeah, you’ve sure educated me all right. Too bad it’s not the education you intended.
Allow me to snort with laughter.
Oh, and you still haven’t answered my accusations about the Roman Catholic hierarchy committing blasphemy against the Word of God. Because if they HAVE, then all your arguments are moot because the Roman Catholics are no longer a church at ALL and stand condemned.
Oh, and while I’m thinking about it.
How do you handle all the Catholic theologians from the first few centuries that make the claim that Jesus never meant Peter but always the confession of Jesus as the Christ?
You know?
After your accusations, I did some research.
(Though let’s be honest. Not presenting proof of your arguments is pretty lame.)
And while I don’t believe you for a second, I will say that yes, Jesus spoke Aramiac. That doesn’t, however, mean that none of them spoke Koine. Considering how John and Matthew were distributed in Koine, with a distinct lack of Aramaic Gospels, I find it hard to believe that they’re ignorant like that.
And no, I still don’t believe you. You have not presented proof that what you claimed was the original word was actually spoken; all you have offered was an assumption that fits your narrative.
On top of that, you have not offered any additional arguments to support your claim about Peter having church authority, only one passage that could be interpreted multiple ways.
And considering the fact that the church was spread on the confession that Jesus is the Christ, not that Peter was the leader of some new religion, suggests that the ‘rock’ was ‘you are the Christ.’
No dice, sir. No dice.
By the way, have you considered my accusations against Roman theology and how it blasphemes the Word of God?
Why take this verse out of context?The CATHOLIC ECFs taught something entirely different than what Rome's inions push today:
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
If not flat-out a misrepresentation of the Matthew 16:18, it is an error in understanding grammatically what Jesus was saying in that verse.
First, you need to show that this sobriquet for Simon bar Jona was not a new one just given at the time Jesus was speaking. Rather, this nickname had been in common use amongst the group for about two and a half years previous, when Jesus called him "Kefas" the first time He saw Simon, at the beginning of His public ministry (Jn. 1:42), and his fellow disciples saw it exactly fit to apply to his personality characteristics.
Secondly, this word is not Hebrew; it is of Chaldean origin, and appears only twice in the OT (Job 30:6, Jer. 4:29). As compared to the other OT words for stone or rock, it is never used to refer to God or His attributes, and thus separates the qualities of Simon as not comparative to those of The Christ.
Thirdly, you have to realize that this was an unusual kind of stone--a hollow one--sort of like a geode, I suppose, in this case.
Fourth, the word for this special rock is masculine in gender, and thus when translated, must be of the masculine gender in the Greek word translating it. "Petros" in Jn. 1:42 and Mt. 16:18 is not made masculine because Simon is a male; it is a masculine noun selected for Simon because he is male.
Fifth, the nickname is not applied by Jesus to Simon as a sign of rock-like strength, steadiness, reliability, and imperturbability, as most would like to imagine. That would require a different word than Kefas, or Petros. No, that name Kephas, a hollow rock, speaks not of the qualities of a rock, but of the composition of stone: the density, the impenetrability of Simon's mental capabilities, that result in his insensitivity to the abstract, the stolidity of insisting on exercising his will over that of others, of fickleness when a thought consumed him, and of lack of spiritual depth compensated for only when the Spirit of God came over Him; a "rock-head," so to speak.
On the other hand, the Greek word "petra" is of the feminine gender, and differentiates it as a massive outcropping escarpment whose qualities represent those of God and Christ, repeated over and over again in the OT Scriptures. Though of the feminine gender in Greek, it could refer to the Christ (a male) because of its qualities. Or it may refer to the foundational saying verbalized by Peter, not from his own mental processes, but placed in His mind supernaturally. The disciples obviously did not have the New Testament, but the were very well aware that "petra" did not refer to Simon, whose characteristics they were also quite familiar with, as a "kefa/petros."
In fact, when Simon came out with the statement, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!", doubtless it was an utter surprise to him (who had not so far admitted this concept) as it was to the others present (who had already voiced this truth). And actually Simon was so dense that Jesus remarked the unlikeliness of him saying such a thing:
"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood(neither your reasoning nor of those about you) hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven!"
However, since that foundational statement was a clear, concise, and complete prophecy, He went on and announced:
"And I say also unto thee, (On the one hand)That thou art Peter(the "hollow rock"), and (on the other hand)upon this rock(this foundational statement) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (my interpretive superscripts). This agrees with what the ante-Nicene fathers said, also, IIRC.
Your interpretation does not, grammatically, historically, contextually, or theologically make any sense.