Apostle Peter, the Rock foundation of the Church?!!


Okay, here I am again somewhat discussing yet another basic Catholic doctrine or should I say dogma? This has been a topic of some religious debates for a long time and sad to say only a few ended up believing the correct side. So bear with me as I lay ALL the evidences in the Bible (I am using the New American Bible, a Catholic bible to make things sweeter) to once and for all, negate all the wrong doctrines that they are inculcating in the minds of so many people worldwide.

The Catholics are of course claiming that it was Peter who is the “rock” that Jesus was referring to in Mat. 16:18, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” In Attic Greek, Peter means Petros or “stone” while the “rock” that Jesus was referring to is translated as petra which means “rock”. In Aramaic, the word “kephas” is used for stone or rock. That’s why Peter’s name was called Cephas in the Bible. Now the problem lies here. The NT was written in Koine Greek where petra and petros simply meant “rock”. Catholics are saying that the word “petros” was only used to denote the masculine gender of Peter since it is unsuitable to use “petra”, a feminine name on Peter, a male one. For them, there is absolutely no other rock that is being pointed to other than Peter. Now, can this be true in the real sense of the Bible? Let us see.

To properly understand the Bible today, we should consult the original manuscripts to know the exact intention of usage of the words, as per the intention of the writer but since they are Word of God, it is inevitable to consider also the spiritual context of it so I must discuss this topic from two point of views: technical and spiritual. They must jive together and yield same result.

Technical point of view:

If in the Koine Greek the word petros and Petra simply meant “rock”, then it will be much easier to realize the truth. Please take note the use of petros and Petra. Why did Matthew mention two different terms? If Christ was referring to Peter for the whole of Mat. 16:18, He should have never mentioned the term that corresponds to the word “Petra”. Interesting to note is that Christ was speaking Aramaic which has kephas for both “rock” and “stone”. So why on earth that when the Aramaic was translated into Koine Greek, all of a sudden there came the word Petra? The answer is simply biting. This is to differentiate the person of Peter from the character of that “Rock” Christ was referring to. So what or who is that “Rock” or “Petra” that Christ was referring to? Catholics claim that since Peter is the nearest noun from the word rock, he should be the one whose being referred to as “rock” and petros should be used to designate Peter. WRONG. These are Bible scriptures not essays. You see the Bible tells us the answers in clever ways. As I’ve said earlier, we must know what is the exact intention of the writer. In Mat. 16:18, the “rock” there which the church will be built should have a large mass, stable and suitable as foundation. Of course, only foolish people will build their church (or house) on sand. That is the literal projection of that “rock”. That is why when it was translated, they used the word “petra”. And how about petros? While it’s true that “Petros” is associated with the Aramaic “Cephas” in John 1:42 it is not used to name a rock or stone in context but to a proper name, “Cephas” which is associated in turn to rock or stone. However, please bear in mind that the association of “Cephas” to rock or stone from USAGE is not found in the Greek NT but outside of it, that is, in Aramaic literature such as the Pes-hitta Bible. Also note that Cephas (Petros in Greek) was already Peter’s name before his confession at Mat. 16:18 so the translators had to use the word petros. We must also notice that in the NT, petra and petros are being used differently from each other. Petra is being used to denote a literal rock (e.g. (Mat. 7:24-25, Mat. 27:60, Rom. 9:33), a large mass of rock while petros is exclusively used for Peter, of course.

So, to sum it up, I must say that the the character of “petra” is entirely different from the character being depicted by “petros”. Although the two terms share the same English meaning “rock” in Koine Greek, the difference between the two shall be evidently seen in the next discussion–the Spiritual point of view.

Spiritual point of view:

This is the other half of studying the Bible verses. Why? Because here lies the very essence of every verse. Okay, I will start by asking, “Who is speaking in the verse. Mat. 16:18?” Is this relevant to know? Yes of course. Was it really Christ Himself? The answer is NO. It is the Father speaking. Proof? In Deut. 18:18, it says there that God will raise a prophet like Moses from among their kinsmen and will put His words into that prophet’s mouth. This is being authenticated in Jn. 6:14 and 7:40; Acts 3:22 and by Christ Himself in Jn. 12:49-50 . That prophet is Jesus Christ Himself. Now, the building of His church is one of His words (Amos 9:11-12, Acts 15:16). So when Christ had spoken to Matthew, it was the Father who actually speaks. Christ is just saying them as the Father told Him (Jn. 12:50, Heb. 1:1-2). It has no difference from Jn. 2:19 wherein Christ was telling the Jews to destroy THIS temple and in three days He will raise it up. You see The Jews knew that Christ was the One talking but it was the Father who actually speaks and He was speaking about the temple of His Son’s body Jn. 12:21, not Solomon’s temple. And to make it consistent, I will go back to Deut. 18:18 wherein God said that His words will be put into the prophet’s mouth which in turn happened to be Jesus Christ. What’s the relevance? The death of Christ is also included in the Father’s words (Is. 53:3-5, 11-12 ) that is why Christ is also telling those! Now we can see clearly that in Mat. 16:18 that the Father is pointing to a certain “Petra” or “Rock” on which He will build His church. The question is, “What or Who is this Petra that shall become the foundation of the church?” This is getting interesting. In 1Pet. 2:4-8 and Eph. 2:20, it is clear there that Christ is the cornerstone of the church. We have no question for that. The problem is the Catholics believe that the foundation of the church is different from the cornerstone of the church. They believe that Peter is the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone. Perhaps they don’t realize the true meaning of verses. In Is. 28:16, we can see clearly that the cornerstone that God laid is also a sure foundation! Christ the cornerstone is also the foundation of church! This is also being attested by Apostle Paul in 1Cor. 3:11 wherein he said that there is no other foundation can be laid other than what is already laid, Jesus Christ. To further support this, in Eph. 2:19-20 it says,

19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God,

20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.


Clearly matches with Is. 28:16. The church, including the apostles are built upon the foundation of the apostles (including Apostle Peter) and prophets and NOT on Peter. The Catholics (including Mr. Cenon Bibe Jr.) are twisting this verse. They want to show that the apostles are the foundation of the church which is you know, very dangerous. Take note, I am using a Catholic Bible, New American Bible on this verse and even if you’ll be the one to read the verse there is no way that the apostles there are the foundation of the church. The apostles and prophets and the other brethren have a foundation, a foundation already laid, and this is the “rock” or “petra” that is being mentioned in Mat. 16:18-Jesus Christ. In fact, if we have to take another verse with similarity we can read Mat. 7:24-27,

24″Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.

25The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock

26And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.

27The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”


If we are wise enough, we can see that Christ is using literal-spiritual wordings here. Listening to Him and putting them into action is like building your house on a rock! See, Christ is likening Himself into a rock foundation! That’s the very essence if Christ is your foundation. He, being the source of all wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3), being a rock that will make evil fall (1Pet. 2:8), being the one who gave His life for the church (Eph. 5:25, 1Tim. 2:6, 1Jn. 3:16) should be the one to listen to, and base our faith and deeds.

My friends, Catholics and non-Catholics, I hope this post will help you to decide and stand firm for what is correct. If anyone is still not convinced, you may send me your message. I will answer back. With this, I leave you the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ.


7 Responses to “”

  1. pantas Post Says:

    More power bro….ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints(jude 3)

  2. Odan Matig-a Says:

    If God the Father was speaking in Matthew 16: 13-18 about the foundation of the church then what is the difference of that church from the “church” He founded in the desert led by Moses as your teacher Eli Soriano wrote? Mr. Soriano wrote about the church in the wilderness as the original church so that church in Matthew 16: 13-18 is irrelevant… right?

    • dbase23 Says:

      Thank you very much for the question. Please don’t make it appear that the church in the wilderness is not a real church buy putting quotation mark. It was the Bible that says there was a church in the wilderness.

      About your question, The church in the wilderness is Israel. Israel was the firstborn of God according to Him.

      And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thou saith the LORD, Israel is my son,even my firstborn. –Exo. 4:22

      This firstborn of God, Israel which was also called church in the wilderness was also the church which He made His first covenant with–the Old Testament. And as you said, it was led by Moses.

      On the other hand, the church which God built through Jesus Christ was the church composed of the same Israelites which in the first place was Jesus’ main concern as what He said:

      But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. –Mat. 15:24

      The difference now are: this time it is Christ Jesus who leads the church, there is another covenant made for this dispensation which is the New Testament and the Gentiles were also included and called in the church.

      That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: –Eph. 3:6

      You see, it is not because the Israel was the church of the firstborn as mentioned in Heb. 12:23, it will make the church Christ built irrelevant. No. We have to take into consideration the reasons behind it.

      Why would God built His church? Didn’t He built it long time ago which was Israel? The answer is because Israel fell down because it went astray after the death of its righteous leaders.

      Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have yebound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and cruelty have ye ruled them.” –Ezek. 34:2-4

      That is why it fell down:

      In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breeches thereof: and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old. –Amos 9:11

      So there was a need to raise the church again but this time, with the Gentiles. That is the church of God in the New Testament.

      Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

      And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

      After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

      That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. –Acts 15:14-17

      I hope this clears it to you brother.

      Thank you again.

  3. Odan Matig-a Says:

    dbase23 says:


    //Thanks dbase23 for your answers. I put a quotation mark on the word “church” because there is really no mention in the OT of a church in the wilderness”. In the OT the jews never call themselves as a church… but house of Israel.//

    dbase23 says:


    //I agree! Israel is called the firstborn of God.//

    dbase23 says:


    //No… Israel was and it will never be called as the “church in the wilderness”. This is the reason that made the jews stronger in their faith because christianity wanted to hi-jacked the house of Israel and changed it into a church.//

    dbase23 says:


    //I think you do not understand and detect the difference between the house of Israel led by Moses in the OT and the church of Christ in the NT.//

    As what you cited and I quote:


    //Mat. 15:24 has the same interpretation as John 10:16. You see! These 2 verses in the NT is supposed to give you a clear understanding that; in the eyes of christians the lost sheep is the house of Israel. When Jesus came he liberalized the laws of Moses which made the gentiles partakers of the promise of salvation.

    There is still a deeper idea of Mat. 15:24 but as of now I’ll just leave it that way until the time you will realize that you are wrong in your interpretation.//

    dbase23 says:


    //The difference is stretched further when the jews do not believe in Jesus as the Christ. When you examine closely the NT; it is a discourse more on anti Judaism.//

    dbase23 says:


    //Church of the firstborn mentioned in Hebrew 12:23; is to describe the church whose members are from the jews. It is not the house of Israel. It’s a description like church of God, church of Christ, church of the Holy Sepulchre or the churches of Rome.//

    dbase23 says:


    //In the OT there is no word “church” because the word church is greek. You can find this word in the NT which were written in greek.

    Your question is ambiguous! It was not God the Father who built a church. It was Jesus the Word incarnate. God the Father chose his people Israel… and they are called house of Israel and not a church. In the NT a church was established for the salvation of gentiles… not because Israel fell.//

    dbase23 says:


    //These verses refer to the politics of Israel after King Solomon.

    When Solomon died (between 926-922 BC), the ten northern tribes refused to submit to his son, Rehoboam, and revolted. From this point on, there would be two kingdoms of Hebrews: in the north, Israel, and in the south, Judah.//

    dbase23 says:


    //When it fell did it rise again? Answer please!//

    dbase23 says:


    //Is the tabernacle of David already raised up from its destruction? Answer please!//

    dbase23 says:


    //You are making your interpretation murkier. How can you say that; “there was a need to raise the church again”. The church built by Christ had not fallen. If you think the church is the same as the house of Israel… then you are wrong! I told you already there is no church in the OT.//

    dbase23 quotes Acts 15:14-17;


    //Is the tabernacle of David the same will be built again? answr please!//

    Thank you!

  4. Odan Matig-a Says:


    If you see discripancies in how I quote your statement it is because your statements cannot be copied and pasted. I don’t worry very much if you quote me.

    Thanks again!

  5. dbase23 Says:

    Where are these dBase23 “replies” came from??! I did not write these replies bearing my username.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: