Purgatory, the final santification process from your sins...or your sinful nature?

[Gorgias]

The only scriptural scholars who would disagree with me, on Petra vs. Petros are Catholic… Hmmm…

Actually, no. The consensus among all scholars – Catholic or not – is that the “Petra/Petros” argument is specious. I would respectfully ask that you go back and re-research the question. A Google search might be a good start.

Just to get you started, I found these online:

(Baptist) Donald A. Carson in his Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2 says:

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

(Baptist) John A. Broadus in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew says:

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

Donald A. Hagner says in his Word Biblical Commentarys says:

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built… The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

 

[Christianapologist]

Well, just taking your first example: here is a exert from “Exegetical Apologetic s”. Notice the first name in the credits:

Peter’s role in the Acts 15 council is sometimes presented as an example of an ex cathedra remark where Peter shows his alleged papal primacy. However, he does not sound like a pope defining dogma when comparison is made. Nor is there any indication in that chapter or anywhere else in the New Testament that Peter’s role at that council amounted to giving a formal doctrinal definition. As Carson relays, “Acts 15:10 is scarcely an example of the opposite viewpoint [binding men to doctrine], for there Peter does not proceed by legislative fiat. The church in Acts 15 seeks spiritually minded consensus, not imposed Halakoth; and James is more prominent than Peter” (D.A. Carson, Matthew, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], p. 372-372).
Indeed, James’ comments in Acts 15:19 is more akin to what Rome means by an ex cathedra definition than Peter’s are. Again, at the close of the council James determined. Lastly, all of the apostles were given the ability to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18 and so if that authority establishes Peter’s ability to give unique and supreme infallible ex cathedra statements, then that means all of the apostles did that, not just Peter; and thus all apostles enjoyed papal primacy.
With regard to Peter being the rock, D. A. Carson confirms that:
“none of this requires that conservative Roman Catholic views be endorsed . . . The text says nothing about Peter’s successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority” (D.A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], p. 368).

Should I check out the others…??

 

[Gorgias]

Well, just taking your first example: here is a exert from “Exegetical Apologetic s”. Notice the first name in the credits:

OK, so… your approach is to move away from your remark which has been shown to be unsupportable, and instead attempt to point to an unrelated argument? Got it.

With regard to Peter being the rock, D. A. Carson confirms that:
“ none of this requires that conservative Roman Catholic views be endorsed . . . The text says nothing about Peter’s successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority” ( D.A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], p. 368).

Excuse me: your assertion was the “Petra / Petros” red herring. Having been shown that you’re mistaken, you’re going to attempt to change your tack to another approach, without admitting that you’ve been shown to be wrong? Got it.

Should I check out the others…??

Your first two attempts at misdirection have failed. Please try again, if you wish.