On Peter

Call me lazy, but I am trying to get a two-fer here. As I mentioned earlier I've been trying to clarify the Catholic Church and her Teachings to some Seventh Day Adventists on their paranoid conspiracy theory-filled website. So people start to play games with lines in scripture that seem very clear to make them fit their views. Here I try to defend the Catholic view on Peter as the Rock on which Christ built His Church. Some changes were made in my stuff. I can do that. It's my stuff.

Regarding Matthew 16:18, it is important to remember that Jesus, being from Galilee spoke to his fellow Galileans in Aramaic, not Greek. The evangelists, writing in Greek, used Petros for the name Peter, since you couldn't use the usual term for Rock (Petra) for him as it is feminine. At any rate what Jesus probably said was Kepha which is also rendered as Cephas. You are using interpretation, not translation to say that Cephas is stone. Kepha is rock, period. [Thanks Fr. Ned]

I took a look at the Greek of the "Textus Receptus" of 1Pet 2:7 there is no appearance of Petra. The "rock of offense" of the following verse uses Petra however. Peter is using Rock in a few different ways here. Surely we cannot think that Peter thought the "rock of offense" was Jesus.

Petra is also absent in Acts 4:11. They are using stone here in the KJV.

Some try to downplay Peter's primacy by saying he was only a stone, not a Rock. But Christ is being described as a stone. This does not in anyway lessen His importance.

So is Christ Petra? I took a look in the septuagint where God is called a Rock, 1Sam 2:2, and Psalm 19 v 15 (which curiously isn't in the KJV, unless the website I use for it is messing up) I don't see Petra. Now this certainly wasn't an exhaustive search, and I am sure some Biblical scholars have written books on this topic alone. Petra however is present in 1Cor10:4. In this passage however, it is not being used as a foundation for the Church, but as a Christian understand of the water that came from the Rock.

I think "on this Petra (Kepha)" means something different than the Rock of Christ. I think the descriptions of Christ as cornerstone, or the stone rejected, of Christ as foundational use a different term than Petra for a reason. They are describing different foundations. Christ certainly is the solid ground on which we must build our lives. The spiritual life of the Church is built on Christ, as He is the Vine and we are the branches. We are the body of Christ. But the human institution on earth that Christ founded, was built on the rock of Peter. They are two different senses. They are two different rocks. They are perfectly compatible with each other.

The fact that Christ changes the name of Simon to Peter is very significant.

Abram to Abraham. We all know the story of Father Abraham. His descendants will be numerous as the stars. A pivotal point in the relationship of God with His people.

Jacob to Israel. Jacob wrestled with God. His name change was also significant. The nation became known as Israel.

Saul/Paul are variations of the same name. His name isn't changed by God.

When God changes someones name it's a big deal. Simon to Rock is a big deal. Peter is the Rock on which Christ built His Church. While acknowledging that Christ is the Cornerstone of our salvation he never denies his own position as Rock on which the church is built.

In other words:
Peter rocks, dude!

Let me know if any of it sounds stupid. Or if any of it sounds cool.