MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[tqualey]

Hi, AnIrishLutheran,

Welcome to CAF - I’m an Irish Catholic… :shamrock2:

Now, let’s see what we have here…

Interesting thread. I’d like to challenge several statements from up above:

"The petros/petra controversy is non existent.
When Jesus spoke - He spoke in Aramaic. The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha.
This is how it would have gone. “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Kepha and upon this kepha I >will build my Chuch” Straight English translation : “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Rock and >upon this rock I will build my Church”.

You know, AIL, re-doing Christ’s words is not necessary. Christ said quite a lot in this section in Matthew… please look at your abridged version of Matt 16:18-19. Here is what I have:

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.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Notice that Christ did not have 11 additonal sets of keys - just the one set He gave to Peter. The leader of the apostles has the authority to bind and lose - there should be no doubt that Peter had the authority - to uses a phrase, “He is the man!” or if you rather. “He is the pebble!” But, you know, the very sense of the scene given in the beginning of Matt 16 does not really lend itself to playing word games or Christ joking around with the Apostles. I really think He was as serious as a heart attack. Besides, do you really think Christ changed Peter into a rock or a pebble or even a mustard seed? How about Christ was using a metaphor indicating that Christ’s Chruch was gong to withstand the hurricane force winds of Satan? And, if God wanted a pebble with the mass and gravitational pull of a astronomical BLACK HOLE - I think He could have had whatever he wanted. Don’t you think so?

Now, don’t forget… shortly afterwards - Peter was called ‘Satan’ by Jesus in Matthew 16:22-23, Peter famously denies Jesus three times a little later on in the Gospels and, even after Pentecost, Peter was reprimanded by Paul for compromising concerning the truth of the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter is a real sinner. And, staying true to his human nature… he probably messed up on things NOT recorded in Scripture! In my opinion, every Pope since Peter - up to and including Benedict XVI has really been a sinful man! Honest. I really do believe that. But in that long list of Popes - NOT ONE EVER TAUGHT ERROR. And, I really do not think Peter (‘Rock-hood’ status notwithstanding) was able to manage this on his own - in fact none of these Popes did this on their own. This is the Power of the Holy Spirit you are witnessing.

By the way, as an asside, you appear to be championing St. Augustine. He is a fine saint, and an Early Church Father - and a solid supporter of the Primacy of Peter (the Rock). Augustine did not question Rome’s decisions - in fact, he solidly supported them.

God bless

 

[GaryTaylor]

By the way Matthew’s Gospel would have been translated into Greek quite early, before 70 A.D. It should be noted that Matthew’s Gospel has more “Hebraisms” than any of the others. This suggests an earlier Aramaic version, although no early Aramaic version of Matthew has been found.

Was Greek also spoken then as mentioned above? Yes, and also used in Rabbi teachings, but the indication from the Gospel of John and various words used, and the style of writting used by Matthew indicate Aramaic and Matthews style is indicative of earlier Judaism and John’s writting without a doubts in Old Testament style.

Matthew was a very intelligent follower of Christ, tax collector etc, and would have wrote his words very quickly, its thought Matthew actually took dictation from Christs speech’s such as the Sermon on the Mount.

You can debate things like this all day, and there are a few who’s thinking leans toward the Greek side. But the majority of Scholar’s are with the Aramaic thinking.

Yes the Keys of the Kingdom as Tom mentions, which relates to OT Isaiah prophecy.

God Bless, GT

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GaryTaylor,

I liked your post. I do, however, have a comment to make.

I have a problem with a categorical statement of fact, when the best we have is an educated opinion. When you say, “Jesus spo9ke to His Apostles in Aramaic”, you are stating a fact. But, I do not believe that there is a reference for this. I am thinking that we could say, “We think Jesus spoke…” or “Jesus probably spoke…” or something along those lines. In reality, I do not know anyone could say with real assurance that they know the language that anyone of the people who is quote, spoke in. But I really do not think that is important (knowing the language that was used for speech).

Considering that the real weight lies in what is the inspired written word - and how spoken language was translated into written language is important. We draw from the infallable word of God that Peter is the Rock and that Christ founded His Church on this weak and sinful man, and that Christ gave Peter the sign of unique authority by giving Peter the keys and the power to bind and lose. And the Catholic Church - with the power to bind and lose - has authenticated that the Holy Scriptures are in fact the Word of God.

Maybe this was just a small point, but, it was important to me.

God bless

Jesus spoke to His Apostles in Aramaic. In Aramaic, Jesus would say to the Apostle Peter “you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha, I will build my church.” Kepha is Aramaic for Rock. The Gospel of Matthew was written originally in Aramaic, and later translated to the Koine Greek, which had feminine, neuter, and masculine words. The word petra (feminine) was proper to be used for rock, the translator used the word “petros” for the man since he could not use the feminine. In the Koine Greek of the first century, petra and petros meant exactly the same thing, just one female the other male or feminine/masculine better yet. This conlusion here isn’t even a debate.

The Roman Catholic Church began in 33 AD in Jerusalem, then moved office/church to Rome with the first Pope, St. Peter. The word Catholic is coined in the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch before he’s feed to the Lions in Rome. The letters are still at the Vatican, by the way these letters date 104 AD. Yet Ignatius used this term for years prior to this. Also written in the letters is the church structure/Chain of Command. So all this is in full effect here for fact. The Baptism was also used from the time of Christ/John the Baptist. Its first called immersion then bapism by the Catholic Church. But this is done from day one.

Anyway I have to see what else you wrote I could quickly comment on here. Yes, as mentioned theres many question on this topic.

God Bless, GT

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes your right Tom, I also believe its possible He may have been able to speak Greek. And the Greek was used for sure. Not so much with those who lived His lifestyle. But its without a doubt possible considering who He is, anything is possible.

Would He have likely been raised with learned Greek? I don’t think so, being much indicates Mary being Levite in family lines. But surely I wasn’t there, so as mentioned thats not even a debate to me. Comes to a lot of what he and they say.

God Bless, GT

 

[mountaintop]

Well, well, well, Jesus700,

When you get finished boasting of your own education, feel free to go back and actually respond to Post #4 and #5.

When you have actually completed that - then tell me, just why have your joined CAF?

God bless

:takethat: At least they like are book. where did father 6 martin 6 Luther 6 get his bible from?:bigyikes:

a catholic priest roots go all the way back to the 12 apostles.

 

[benedictus2]

The petros/petra controversy most certainly exists.

Only in the ill informed mind.

“When Jesus spoke - He spoke in Aramaic.” How do you know?

For the simple reason that is quite evident in the Bible.

Mark 5:41 Talitha kum
Mark 7:34 Ephphatha
Mark 14:36 Abba
Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:9-13 -Mammon
Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 Eli Eli lema sabachthani

Archaeology at Nazareth indicates the residents likely were polyglots – Aramaic at the synagogue, Greek at the market and probably most everywhere else. Even in Rome, where you’d think Latin was primary, in the 1st century it was really Greek. Jesus grew up in the mish-mash culture of Galilee, after all, not in heavily Jewish Judea.

That may be so and I do not dispute that He is more than capable of speaking in Greek or whatever language it would have pleased Him, but most scholars agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Allen C Meyers wrote: It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Israel in the first century A.D. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem.

And even if you’re right, Matthew wrote down and correctly reflected what Jesus said in Greek.

Most definitely. And in Koine Greek of the 1st century, there is no distinction between petros and petra the former being a small pebble with the latter being a large rock. By this time the classical distinction has disappeared.

Furthermore, you have to go to the heart of the conversation. It is less likely that Jesus would speak to Simon in Greek because He is speaking to an un-educated fisherman whose language would have only been the local language.

**And here is another clue:
Jesus addresses Simon as Simon bar Jonah. “Bar” is Aramaic for “son of”. So you can clearly glean from this that the discourse was in Aramaic. **

Furthermore, we know that Simon is addressed as Cephas by Paul ( 1 Cor 1:12 and Gal 1:18) and by Jesus Himself in John 1:42

But here is an interesting note, the final sigma (s) in Cepha(s) was added in Greek to make it masculine instead of feminine. Now this is exactly what was done in the Greek translation – to masculinize petra they called him Petros.

So you need to deal with the Greek as we have it, not with the Aramaic Jesus may or may not have spoken.

Yes we do need to deal with the Greek except that it is clearly evident that He did speak Aramaic.

What matters for us is the apostolic Scriptures as they stand written, not as they were not written.

Even in this case the petros/ petra issue does not hold water.

An example you’d likely agree with: How do we know that the bread and wine in the Supper are really Jesus’ body and blood? Because he said, “This is my body.” As you may know, Aramaic doesn’t have a word for “is.” But that does not matter for us. We do not know with certainty of faith what language he said it in. But we know that the Scriptures clearly say, “This IS my body.” For us, that’s what matters.

Aaah, but that is a different matter all together.

Recall Tarzan. He goes : You Jane, Me Tarzan. What is Tarzan clearly saying here though : You are Jane, I am Tarzan.

 

[benedictus2]

f you want to say, “The truth Peter had just confessed was revealed to him by the Father: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ This truth, which the Father proclaimed through Peter that day, is the foundation of the church,” that’s great.

No that is not what I am saying at all. Perhaps you were hoping that that is what I was trying to say but sorry, no go.

What I am saying is Peter is the Rock NOT his confession.
Only someone illiterate enough not to understand sentence structure in any language would come up with that conclusion.

So let’s dissect the text one at a time.

1. "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah.” – Who is the “you” being referred to here? Any literate person will say Simon bar Jonah
2. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. –Who is the “you” here again? Did Jesus suddenly switch conversation partner? No. He is still referring to Simon bar Jonah.

3)** And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,** - Again who is the “you”? This is** one continuous discourse** so it cannot be anyone else but Simon.

So since I have established above that Kepha would have been used by Jesus,then it would have gone like this: “I say you, you are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church.

Where pray tell can you infer that this second kepha is anything other than the first kepha? Did Jesus say that Peter’s confession was the Kepha? Show in the text how you can possibly get that interpretation.

As I said, only if you are illiterate will you get that kind of conclusion because you do not understand sentence structure or (which is worse that being illiterate) you have ulterior / nefarious motives for wanting it to be twisted so.

If you want to say that Jesus nicknamed Cephas “Petros,” “Rock,” so that he’d always remember the Rock-Solid Truth he’d confessed, great.

No again. The text does not bear that out. I find it disturbing this kind of convolutions that people go to, to force Christ to say something other than what He is clearly saying.

But if you want to say that Cephas’ nickname inducts him into an office unique among the apostles, and then to say that this office has continued down to the current Bishop of Rome – well, that wrecks the play on words, doesn’t it?

Nope, it makes it fit perfectly and make perfect sense.

Christ did NOT give Simon a nickname. In John He does say that He will be called Peter, but St John does not go into the details of why.

What we have is Matthew’s account. And in Matthew’s account what Jesus is saying is not that Simon will be called Rock, but rather that Simon IS Rock.

Look at the text: Jesus says I say to you, you ARE Kepha; NOT that you will be called Kepha but you ARE Kepha.

Even if you contend that Aramaic does not have the verb “to be” He would have still said: “You Kepha” which based on what you brought up earlier would have still meant “You ARE Kepha”.

He is not merely calling Him Kepha, He is MAKING HIM Kepha, the Kepha that will be the foundation of His Church.

God said “ Let there be light” and there was light.
Jesus said: Talitha Kum. And the girl rose.
Jesus said: “I say to you, you are Rock.” And so Peter IS.
What God decrees IS SO.

It’s not a play on words to call the Rock the Rock. It’s a play on words to call Peter a Rock because what he said was the Rock on which the Church is built.

Refer to my answers above.

 

[benedictus2]

ill second that. and true to fundamentalist form, there is alot of half truths, and out of context verses…ssdt. dt stands for different thread. im sure you can figure out the rest. if they could just put aside their blind rage for a minute, and converse rationally, they may just actually see that what we are saying IS biblically and historicly correct. your explanation of where Jesus pronounced peter the rock was simply astounding! and it painted a very vivid picture. i think it bothers some, that we as Catholics actually DO know our bibles, and more importantly, the history behind what was written, and how it backs up our faith. nicely done. i believe the Holy Spirit is speaking through you, to reach through alot of misconceptions and anger on the part of the op. my prayers and encouragement are yours. Peace

Thank you. I just found out that you are actually stationed in Iraq. Wow and here you are defending the faith as well.

Praise be to God for His many graces. May He keep you safe, May His Healing Touch be always upon you that you will remain physically, emotionally and spiritually well.

 

[benedictus2]

HI, Benedict…yes, benedictus is doing an outstanding job…we can just support his efforts here…keep safe out there…i placed your name and your crew for prayers in the adoration chapel last Dec 8, and will do it again today when I go for a visit.

Pablo

Thank you for that Pablo. But I think we are all doing an outstanding job. But really it is easy. It is easy to tell the truth, but manufacturing lies is difficult.

There is a wonderful member here who is a convert and he said that since converting, apologetics has become way too easy. The Church speaks for herself.

Oh, and I am she.

 

[benedictus2]

From above:

"To the best of my knowledge, Luther wound up doing quite a lot of picking and choosing.

And ain’t that a fact . Though why you would think that a good thing is beyond me.

For example, here are two items for your consideration:
1.) For about 1,500 years (prior to Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517) the Catholic Church had Seven Sacraments - Luther decided his followers only needed 2.
2.) The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon of Holy Scripture in about 400AD through the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church) - Luther decided that Scripture Alone is the governing principle and that people could read the Bible and decide what they wanted to decide."

Oh my. Regarding sacraments, perhaps I’ll start here:

1. Can you cite any church father who spoke of 7 sacraments? Can you even cite anyone at all before 1000 AD who spoke of 7 sacraments?

And who says a Church Father has the last word on what should be doctrine? It is the Church’s Magisterium who decides on the doctrines, not the Fathers. What the Church Father’s writings do though is confirm what that Church has always believed.

1. To us as Lutherans, what matters is not what the church said

As I said. Ain’t that a fact. What matters is what you think. It is not the Church that rules, it is the ego. Hardly something to be “proud” of (don’t pardon the pun)

1. The word “sacrament” is not used in Scripture the way we use it. It has different definitions to different people. Therefore, arguing about the number of sacraments is a bit silly.

The word Trinity is not in Scripture either. Your point being?

The Lutheran Church has preferred the definition of Augustine, “Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum,” “Add the word to the element and it becomes a sacrament.” A “sacrament,” then, includes an outward, material element, and Christ’s command and promise of grace connected with that material element (Augustine’s verbum). Defined that way, there are only two sacraments – Baptism and the Supper. None of the others have all the ingredients.

But Augustine (much as I love him and think him a wonderful Father of the Church) is not the magisterium. As a matter of fact Augustine taught Predestination (very similar to Calvin’s since Calvin got it from him) and this the Church has rejected.

If you want to remove the requirement for a material element used by God’s command, in fact, the Augsburg Confession is willing to call Absolution a sacrament.

I am not for removing anything that the Church has decreed should stay put. As far as I can tell, I don’t suffer from the same megalomania as Luther.

“The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon of Holy Scripture in about 400AD through the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church)”

1. Would you please refer me to a list of canonical books from the 5th century which includes the Apocrypha?

We do not have Apocrypha, we have the Deuterocanonicals.

1. Do you acknowledge that in 1st century Palestine, “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” Jesus referred to meant the Hebrew Scriptures, not to the apocryphal books? In other words, the distinction between the inspired OT books and the apocrypha predates even Christ, who gave it his approval.

Well no. Up to the time the Christians started mulling about a canon, the Jews did not have a definitive canon.And before you say it, no, it is not settled that Jamnia defined the Jewish canon.

Futhermore, Jesus used the Deuterocanonicals. I refer you to this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=30920

1. Can you help me understand the difference between Luther’s “Sola Scriptura” and Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures? Cyril instructed his catechumens:

“Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell you these things, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

I am replying strictly to how you have entered it here and have not verified the veracity of the quote.

Taking what you have pasted here on face value : Where in the above did Cyril say that Scripture **ALONE **should be the guide?

“But take and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to you, and is established from all Scripture …** For the present, commit to memory the Faith ,** merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. … Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.”
Again, I do not see any affirmation of Sola Scriptura in the rest of the text. Furthermore, in Cyrils time, the canon has not yet been set.

So, I contend, Luther’s demand for proof from the Scriptures was a reaffirmation of Sola Scriptura. Luther certainly did not invent it.

Nope. Luther invented it. And it is an illogical demand. Because even Scripture does not support Sola Scriptura.

 

[benedictus2]

I have a problem with a categorical statement of fact, when the best we have is an educated opinion. When you say, “Jesus spo9ke to His Apostles in Aramaic”, you are stating a fact. But, I do not believe that there is a reference for this.

Hi Tom,

There is a reference for this in the Bible and I have enumerated this in my reply to IrishLutheran.

What strikes me as a very good argument that He spoke Aramaic is that His words on the cross, as recorded in the Bible, when He was suffering was in Aramaic : Eli Eli Lema Sabachthani.

In pain we tend to speak in our natural language.

My sister-in-law has a Filipina friend who, when she was giving birth started to say Ouch, Ouch (wanting to keep it English). But when the labour pains became intense she yelled “Araaaay” which is a Filipino cry of pain.

I find it very interesting that the Holy Spirit has guided the Gospel writers and St Paul to include these Aramaic sayings of Jesus. Perhaps in preparation for the contention that would arise 1800 years later.

I say 1800 years because I doubt that this problem with petros / petra would have been brought up during the time of the Reformation. I could be wrong but I think this is a much later invention.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2

Great observations very well presented.

God bless

Tom

Good insight Benedictus…

Thanks. There is actually still much that one could say as to why evangelicalism and protestantism in general fits verse 23 but two I felt would suffice.

Since we are talking about Peter and his successors, I strongly recommend reading “Light of the World” - Peter Seewald’s interview with Pope Benedict.

Our awesome Pope is simply brilliant! Praise and Thanks to God for giving us Pope Benedict to shepherd us in His stead.

 

[benedictus2]

Interesting, not many make it back. And the ones who do have an alarming testimony which confirms truth.

God Bless, GT

Indeed they do. They become veritable treasure troves of “defense of the hope that we have in us”

By the way, I noticed your signature so concluded you must be devoted to our Blessed Mother.

I think you will enjoy this on on The Battle of Lepanto. The other videos are good as well.

ourcatholichistory.com/video/listing/1/1#

 

[benidict]

Thank you. I just found out that you are actually stationed in Iraq. Wow and here you are defending the faith as well.

Praise be to God for His many graces. May He keep you safe, May His Healing Touch be always upon you that you will remain physically, emotionally and spiritually well.

thank you also! yes we are, but over here, it takes on more of a carnal nature. they are actually trying to kill iraqi Catholics over here. so every time i break the wire, i think of them. i ask everyone to pray for their safety. Peace to you and yours.

 

[benedictus2]

One of the things that I have always found amazing is the convoluted mental contortions needed to arrive at the conclusion some have presented. Not only does it take a complete suspension of normal reading and comprehension ability - but, an utter disregard and contempt for the history of the Early Catholic Church as it thrived under wave after wave of murderous persecution.
Yes indeed. And the lies that one fabricates. Surely they are aware that the devil is the father of lies.

For years I had this misconception that Christmas was a pagan festival that we somehow Christianized.

And yet I found out that this was actually a fabrication by a German Protestant to show people the paganization of Catholic Christianity.

In fact, it has always been a Christian festival and it was the pagans who tried to paganize a Christian date and not the other way around.

 

[benedictus2]

thank you also! yes we are, but over here, it takes on more of a carnal nature. they are actually trying to kill iraqi Catholics over here. so every time i break the wire, i think of them. i ask everyone to pray for their safety. Peace to you and yours.

I heard about that in the news. And the hypocritical media displayed no outrage.

 

[benidict]

I heard about that in the news. And the hypocritical media displayed no outrage.

i would expect nothing less from them. but rest assured, im a gunner, so i can express the outrage we feel very nicely, if push comes to shove the way i look at it, im saving my fellow soldiers lives, and civilian lives. both the good Muslims who want nothing to do with the violence and of course my Catholic brothers and sisters here. lets not be mistaken though. i do not consider the people perpetrating this, as Muslims. nor do my Muslim friends. we view them as terrorist. they deserve no other label. Peace

 

[benidict]

Thank you for that Pablo. But I think we are all doing an outstanding job. But really it is easy. It is easy to tell the truth, but manufacturing lies is difficult.

There is a wonderful member here who is a convert and he said that since converting, apologetics has become way too easy. The Church speaks for herself.

Oh, and I am she.

i wish you were a he…youd make an awesome priest!!! you almost have me thinking women in the priesthood…aw, never mind! lol! just glad to have you on our side. you are indispensable. wait, i got it :newidea: we could clone you! lol! but i dont think the fundamentalist could handle more than one.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

You certainly have been busy… The light of your insight and understanding shown in your posts has illuminated me … I stand corrected. Jesus spoke Aramaic (which I strongly suspected) and you provided the proof - which I really appreciate…

Keep up the good work.

God bless

Hi Tom,

There is a reference for this in the Bible and I have enumerated this in my reply to IrishLutheran.

What strikes me as a very good argument that He spoke Aramaic is that His words on the cross, as recorded in the Bible, when He was suffering was in Aramaic : Eli Eli Lema Sabachthani.

In pain we tend to speak in our natural language.

My sister-in-law has a Filipina friend who, when she was giving birth started to say Ouch, Ouch (wanting to keep it English). But when the labour pains became intense she yelled “Araaaay” which is a Filipino cry of pain.

I find it very interesting that the Holy Spirit has guided the Gospel writers and St Paul to include these Aramaic sayings of Jesus. Perhaps in preparation for the contention that would arise 1800 years later.

I say 1800 years because I doubt that this problem with petros / petra would have been brought up during the time of the Reformation. I could be wrong but I think this is a much later invention.

 

[tqualey]

H-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-o-o-o-o-o-o … AnIrishLutheran,

Are you still out there? It looks like Jesus700 is ‘missing in action’ due to the destruction of his poor arguments… but, surely … you… a fellow Irishman … have been able to hang on!

Now, I know it has not been easy - Benedictus2 has this ‘hot-knife-thrugh-butter’ approach to convoluted logic and spurious presentations - but, come on back! You see, I have this hunch… after you sit down and dust yourself off, you will have the time to read all of these posts that have essentially dismantled your old arguments. Being an Irishman, I know that you will not let a stubborn or hard heart keep you from making the right choices.

So, let’s hear your responses! Don’t follow the cowardly way of Jesus700! Simpy step up to the plate after reaading the posts, researching the material presented in these posts (your attention is directed to Benedictus2’s posts) and let’s hear what you have to say!

Looking forward to hearing from you! :irish2:

God bless

Interesting thread. I’d like to challenge several statements from up above:

"The petros/petra controversy is non existent.
When Jesus spoke - He spoke in Aramaic. The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha.
This is how it would have gone. “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Kepha and upon this kepha I >will build my Chuch” Straight English translation : “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Rock and >upon this rock I will build my Church”. (EDITED FOR BREVITY)