From what angle are approaching these biblical questions? I can't tell if you really want to know and are open to an answer that might not be what you personally believe, or if you are just trolling to bait the Christians and then pull out some Ancient Greek language switcheroo that disproves everything any Christian has ever said.
9 months ago
Last edited at 6:29PM on 8/9/2012
Peter was the first/main/chief Disciple (later Apostle) and God's work is built upon this foundation, that the Apostles are the Ambassadors of Christ and the foundation upon which to continue to build the work/faith that Christ started.
The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, "and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame" (1 Peter 2:6). (cont in comments)
No, Peter is not the rock; what he answered to Jesus is the rock or foundation for the church. Matthew 16:15-18 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and sId, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The rock being the statement " Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." the foundation for today's church. Peter statement inspired from God and not Peter is the foundation. Jesus is our salvation not Peter.
9 months ago
Last edited at 8:37PM on 8/9/2012
No. And my answer is twofold. First, Mark 16 ends at verse 8, as is well known. Anything after that, the verse of interest included, is a much later forgery. So that statement actually does not appear in the NT, much as Catholics may like it. My second answer is that the original Greek uses two different words: you are a pebble [petros], and (perhaps meaning but) upon this rock [petra] I will build...". It might actually mean the exact opposite: you Simon Peter are just a small pebble, I cannot build my church on you, but will instead build it on a rock. Many Protestants like this interpretation, as it throws the rug from underneath the Vatican's claim of apostolic succession. Is the distinction in the Greek significant? Possibly. But remember that Jesus did not speak in Greek, he spoke in his vernacular Aramaic, and even if he said that (which is highly doubtful as that's a late addition to Mark, not to be found in what Mark actually wrote), he used words in Aramaic and we don't know which. Maybe the author - who translated Jesus's words from Aramaic to Greek - understood him correctly, maybe not. On top of that, the writers of the gospels weren't very good Greek writers. Their Greek is often bad and with poor grammar and syntax. It's not even certain the author even knew there was a stark difference between petros and petra. Either way, the answer must be a resounding no.
The word petros means stone in Greek. In Matthew 16 Jesus emphatically addressed Simon (later known as Peter) as Petros and then said upon this petra (a mass of rock) he would build his Church. It seems to me that it was a play on words, saying that Peter was a very small part of the larger foundation of what would become the Church, specifically the disciples who would later recognize Jesus as the Messiah.