There are not several rocks which the Church is built upon but ONE. The ROCK is clearly identified as Jesus Christ which the below verses clearly show.
Deut.32:3 Because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.—15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.—18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
1 Sam. 2:2 There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Psalm 18:31 For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God?
Psalm 95:1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.
Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that rock was CHRIST.
1 Cor. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit
And the below verse is of course THE verse that the Roman Catholic Church uses as an attempt to support the view that the apostle Peter is the rock:
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said,Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.17 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.18 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.
Peter’s name means rock (petros) but Jesus said: “You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (PETRA) I will build My church.” Petra is a feminine noun that refers to a mass of rock, and Petros is masculine in gender and refers to a boulder or a detached stone. We could read the statement as “You are Stone, and upon this Bedrock I will build My church.” Jesus words would indicate that the rock on which the church would be built was something other than Peter, and WHY Jesus build his church on PETER of all people when a better choice would be JESUS HIMSELF and God’s words in the BIBLE? Both the old and the new testament constantly warn people from bowing down to other gods/prophets and from deviating from the Scriptures.
The passage starts with a question concerning Jesus identity and ends with Jesus statement about the ROCK. Jesus starts off asking “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?“. Peter answers “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God“. So”this rock” likely refers to Jesus in His identity as the Son of God since this is that topic that was discussed. Some catholics speculate that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and only repeated Peter’s Aramaic name Kepha. But the inspired New Testament Scriptures were written in GREEK and not Aramaic and can be trusted since it derives from Divine inspiration. If the Aramaic is clear but the Greek inadequate or confusing, why did not the Holy Spirit simply use the Aramaic word to clear up the case as done elsewhere in the NT? When the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek text of the New Testament, he made a distinction between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra) and there must be a reason for this. God is not a God of confusion. Some suggest that it’s the confession of faith that Peter made (acknowledging that Jesus is the Christ) that is the rock that the church should be built on, and this will give the same result.
To base an entire doctrine on a verse that doesn’t even come near confirming that Peter is the rock is very risky. Would God really choose to disclose such an important piece of information in such a vague manner, resulting in that millions of honest truth-seeking christians miss out on joining the Catholic Church which supposedly is based on this rock? Couldn’t God have been a bit more clear on this issue if it’s so important? Jesus is that perfect cornerstone upon which the body of Christ is built, and not a flawed and sinful man such as Peter. In Matthew 16:23, just five verses after Jesus spoke of the “rock”, he called Peter “Satan”.
Bjorkbloggen 
Read article and all comments, i agree with Peter skriver. After all HIS name is Peter as well and i’m sure he nows the history of his name and his faith as well.
LikeLike
As the scene took place among Jews alone it it very probable that they spoke Aramaic. They would not likely speak Greek among themselves. Only when communicating with “outsiders” who did not know Aramaic. I’d say it is almost a reflex to turn to your first language when you are among your own people.
LikeLike
As you can see (if you read my comment) the points in my article still stand whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or not. Please read again.
LikeLike
I’ll give you a friendly hint: check which words would have been used in the spoken Arameic language as the scene between Jesus and the apostles took place. Would the same feminine or masculine differentiation used in Greek also have been used in Arameic? If not, then why?
LikeLike
Hi Peter
I thought about adding the argument about the possibility that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but I chose not to. You can google it if you want.
…………………………………
It is an assumption that Jesus spoke Aramaic on this occasion. Certainly that is the most likely possibility, but the truth is, as Robert Gundry has shown, most Palestineans of the first century were tri-lingual, speaking Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (pp. 404-408). So we cannot be positive what dialect Jesus spoke on this occasion.
Be that as it may, when the Lord changed Simon’s name to Peter, he employed a Hellenized form of the term that is masculine in gender, kephas (see Jn. 1:42). T.H. Robinson conceded that while there is only one word in Aramaic (and it is feminine), when a man’s name is used, it can take a masculine form (p. 141; see also Foster, p. 715).
Matthew: Greek or Aramaic?
Additionally, the fact is, Matthew’s Gospel record was written in Greek; and the Greek clearly reflects a distinction between the masculine petros, and the feminine petra So the argument stands.
This point is alleged to be negated, however, by the supposition that Matthew originally penned his Gospel account in Aramaic, and so the Greek edition is merely a later translation. This view is based mostly upon a quotation from Papias (c. A.D. 135), as preserved by Eusebius (3.39). But Papias’ statement is quite ambiguous, and as Carson notes, few scholars today accept this view. He contends that “much evidence suggests that [Matthew] was first composed in Greek” (pp. 11-12). Hiebert has observed that there are certain “linguistic features” of Matthew’s record which “indicate that it was originally written in Greek” (p. 53; emp. WJ).
LikeLike