The moment you claimed Peter is the Rock!!!!
Jesus said Peter is the Rock, I've listed dozens of PROTESTANT scholars that agree. Your grammatical understanding is outdated.
The topic of the OP is, “Was Peter the Rock that the Church was built upon?”
Jesus does the building, we are not saying otherwise.. He doesn't build junk that needs rebuilding by human opinion 15 centuries later.
I believe, I have answered the question of the OP by supplying with ample scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Rock of the Bible and none other, particularly Ps 18:30-31 which reads:
30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?
Several words in scripture can have more than one meaning, and you don't explain why Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah's name to ROCK, which isn't even a name at the time.
On the other hand, Catholics try to prove Peter is the rock via his primacy. It’s imperative for Catholics to prove Peter is their first pope/leader or the primacy cannot be handed down the line or inherited by the next pope BTW, this is not a bashing of Catholics rather it is to disprove the doctrines of the church you belong to.
We don't have to prove anything. We KNOW. Succession of popes is not just a belief, it is a HISTORICAL FACT.
It is irrelevant how Jesus addressed Peter in John 1:41-42 (which I first addressed in post192) whether in Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek, Peter has not changed he is still the same Peter (a Rose by any other name is still a Rose”). Yourself have said that Jesus spoke in Aramaic therefore when He saw Peter He called him by his Aramaic name “Cephas” which means by interpretation A Stone. I believe Jesus said this of Peter so that there should be no misunderstanding of any kind about Peter’s personality. When a word or verse is doubled up in scriptures (in this case the word “interpretation”) the doubling up ot the word means it is bringing home a point.
Aramaic is not irrelevant, it is the language Jesus spoke. The original language clarifies a secondary translation and that is why you don't like it. Greek is a secondary translation, it is not a divine language. You have based your doctrine on constructive pronouns that don't exist in the language Jesus spoke. Again, I have posted lists of Protestant scholars that don't agree with you. Your approach is outdated.
You have not proven your case with scripture references that Peter is the Rock except by inferences! In fact, no where in the Bible will you find Peter is the Rock, other than his name being interpreted “A Stone.”
What does the name "Peter" mean?
You are in the market place peddling your false doctrines. The Bible warns, “if anyone preach another Jesus than that of the Bible, let him be accursed.” It is a scary thing to fall under the wrath of God.
"Bible" is not in the Bible.
The “binding” and “loosing” that Jesus supposedly gave to Peter as the keys to heaven was actually taken from Jo 20:21-23. No man can forgive sins except God even the Pharisees who were evil knew this.
John 20:21-23 says the opposite:.
21 Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’
Jesus never quoted from John's gospel, the keys have nothing to do with forgiving sins, and Jesus refers the keys from Isa. 22. Binding and loosing is a rabbinal term and everyone at the time understood what it meant. "Jesus supposedly gave to Peter" ??? Can you be that biblically illiterate?
Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).
Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.
Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.
Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.
Secondly, the church Jesus gave His life for is NOT an earthly church as you might want to believe rather a “Spiritual Church” where all true believers identify with sometimes called the “Bride” “the New City Jerusalem” “Israel of God” “My people” and “the elect.”
A purely spiritual church is a Protestant invention, it's not in the Bible. The Body of Christ is both those in heaven and on earth. It would be impossible to feed, cloth, house, educate and provide medal care for more people than the world's largest charity if the Church was just spiritual. It would be impossible for "invisible" Early Church Fathers to discern the canon of Scripture in 397 unless they compiled an invisible Bible. They made infallible rulings on the Trinity at the councils of Nicae, Ephesus, and Chalcedon (that is even accepted by most Protestants) that would have been impossible without a Pope. It would be impossible to have a Bible in the first place if it were not for Tradition and papal authority, which makes sola scriptura so illogical and contradictory.