No, Paul Price, no Pastor Kim

Both yesterday and today, CMI seemed to be attacking the use of internet (with some exceptions, including obviously themselves).

Shatter the echo chamber
by Paul Price, Published: 16 November 2017 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/echo-chamber

"one of the reasons that social media platforms have been so successful is their ability to capture people’s attention by feeding them content they know will be interesting to that person. They keep track of your past actions and preferences, and use this as a template on which to base future suggestions—creating a feedback loop that some have termed the ‘echo chamber’. Ironically, this echo chamber effect of social media means that, rather than making people more connected, it is tending to have the opposite effect: people are being cloistered into tight-knit groups of like-minded individuals who share similar worldviews, political beliefs, and so forth."

With me, it is precisely the contrary.

I have been answering to one Protestant attack on the papacy, then another on the Catholic Church, then ...

I am now involved in the umpteenth attack on, this time specifically Catholic reading of Matthew 16:18.

I have been asking myself if there are Protestants who are recommending these things to me.

Perhaps not, perhaps it is just some programmer who decided that interest in a video on Nephelim or on Nimrod by Rob Skiba somehow implied five years ago (or so) a general interest in anything Evangelical, including Anticatholic stuff.

I am in a kind of echo chamber, but certainly not the one I feel well in.

It is, at least, less intense than the schoolyard bullies I was facing up to before university.

But the algorithm they use is not alive, it does not know or understand anything. If it is giving a targetted effect, I suppose it is due to someone in Heaven (or possibly in Hell if Satan has a hold on me) using it that way.

If internet is per se evil, God is using this to punish me from using it at all. I don't think this is the case, noting it only as a theoretical possibility.

If internet can have good uses, God is listening to someone who wants to give me a lesson, and I would like to know who that is and why God is preferring that guy's prayers to my former ones, I hardly dare pray about my situation any more, so much has God shown He is preferring someone else's prayer over mine.

"Does this mean that websites like creation.com are a waste of time and resources? Absolutely not! But they must be used for the proper purpose. What do you think is more effective: a) sharing a creation.com article to everyone you know on facebook, or b) reading it yourself and talking about it face-to-face with an unbeliever? After all we have seen thus far, I hope the answer b) is the obvious choice, although these are by no means mutually exclusive ."

In my own situation, option b is an impossibility.

I can want to share a creationist article from CMI, I can want to write one in response to CMI, I can for that matter write one of my own, as I might be doing today from some correspondence about carbon 14 formation, b u t if I speak face to face to someone I am not likely to be in a position to bring any of above up.

People speaking to me are speaking to me about my situation, about my not quite French accent, about why I don't look for paid work or how I could look for paid work or how I could seek out someone who - as they know - will sooner or later ask me to look for paid work, B U T speaking with me about subjects I care for? No ...

Planning with me to print my articles ... no.

Reading one of my articles and adressing me on "oh, I saw you had written something on carbon dating, I noticed you had not mentioned this angle" (insert any angle you think he might have discovered, by hypothesis, it would be one I overlooked at least in the articles he happened to read) ... no.

In other words, my physical social surroundings are very much an echo chamber of the type I consider as bullying against me, just ... well, sometimes I won't even say it is less intense than what happened in the schoolyards, it is more like I am more used to it.

Yesterday one man was giving me an alms and just before leaving he added after lauding me "the Lord is with thee" as if the words of the angel the Blessed Virgin were just a common greeting, or at least one between believers.

It is on the internet, not in my physical social surroundings, that I have some capacity to respond to such things.

It is on the internet that I can arrest the near Gish Gallop of Pastor Kim against the Catholic reading, look up the Bible verses, respond to his twisted interpretations. A Pentecostal or Baptist in Paris would usually not give me time to speak. And a Catholic would not care I was responding correctly to it, he would just want to get me off internet, and into another line of work.

I will give you someone else's assessment on why this is not a correct proposal to make me:

"There are a number of ways Christian scholars in higher education can respond. One is simply abandonment. We can just read the tea leaves and decide that a life in colleges and universities isn’t worth butting one’s head against a brick wall forever, and do something else. But investing the many years that a PhD requires, not to say the aspirations of the scholarly life, do not make abandonment a very serious alternative."

CT : The Illusion of Respectability
Allen Guelzo| November 13, 2015 |p. 2
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/november-web-only/illusion-of-respectability-allen-guelzo.html?start=2

I have spent more time in debating on internet, than some have spent on their PhD.

I am trying to make something of it, not to find sth other to do, and some ought to get over that. Trying to repeat to me I ought to abandon will be taken as bullying.

So, here is what I am doing with Pastor Kim's video:

THIS...is a Confusing Bible Verse!
BBC International | Ajoutée le 15 nov. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amKf4hMwbQ4

My responses to Pastor Kim:

I

Resp. to 1:25 "because they [the Catholics] believe Peter is the first pope"

The Greek Orthodox, I was part time such* too, agree Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, Bishops of Rome, or commonly said Popes being his successors.

They also claim that there have been no Popes since the schism, about 1000 years ago, and that some unifying prerogatives of Rome now are with Patriarch of Constantinople (like erecting new Patriarchates, like defining boundaries between Patriarchates - like each Patriarch has in relation to episcopal Sees).

However, they have two ways of dealing with this.

One is, arguably, the same as yours. The real rock is Jesus, or Peter's faith, or at least not Peter himself, or if it is, not more than the other Apostles.

The other is, EVERY local bishop is successor of St Peter.

But they do agree he was first to episcopate in some sense in three locations:

• Jerusalem, together with other apostles, where his or their common successor St James counts as first unitary bishop;
• Antioch
• Rome (coded as "Babylon" in his epistles).

On this, the historic fact of his being first Pope of Rome, they agree completely with us Catholics, or at least since he came to Rome when dying the ensuing bishops became his successors, which is fine enough with us too.

The real difference of opinion is less on what St Peter was (Palamas and Pope Innocent III both argued some sins can only be forgiven by Peter's successors, since it was to St Peter Christ said to forgive 70*7, but Innocent III considers this as meaning Popes of Rome, Palamas as meaning ALL local bishops).

*[Technically not Greek, Romanian]

II

Resp. to 2:59 "[Jesus Christ is] supposed to be the rock of the church"

Even back when Orthodox, before my return to Catholic, I had trouble agreeing with Orthodox who agreed with you. [As to what this verse is conveying]

Did you read past verse 18 to verse 19.

"And I will give THEE the keys of the kingdom of Heaven".

Not "I will give MYSELF" but "I will give THEE".

Also, Jesus being rock of the Church does not contradict Peter being it.

Jesus being rock in and of [H]imself, Peter became rock, then and there, through Jesus who is so in and of [H]imself.

That is how St Augustine sees it.

III

Resp. to 3:08 "supposedly followed after Peter"

You might have some trouble historically documenting any alternative views of who followed after Peter.

Obviously, citing patriarchs of Antioch is not an alternative view, we agree St Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome, we agree he has in Antioch the successors Sts Evodius and Ignatius, and a few more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

just as in the meantime he had in Rome the successors:

Sts Linus, Cletus, Clement I, Evaristus and - Pope during martyrdom of St Ignatius - Alexander I, and a few more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

After 1938 or 1950 or 1958, the article should be making room for alternative claims, as the other article does for Patriarchs of Antioch.

I am obviously NOT accepting Evolution believing "Harry-Potter-God denying" Bergoglio or the most recent predecessors of him as real Popes.

IV

Resp. to 3:11 We also listen to Jesus Christ Himself, whereever we can read what He said on a topic (not so Bergoglio, it would seem, who denies implications of Marc 10:6 both for marriage, see Amoris Laetitia, and for age of humanity).

But there are topics on which we cannot read what He had to say, like, "where shall the bishop of Rome and and bishop of Ostia begin, geographically" or "how many years old must you be before you can receive the Eucharist, on what conditions can you receive it as a baby after baptism, on what conditions can't you do that" ... like when Jesus said "let the children come to me", is He only saying they should be baptised, or is He saying (like the Orthodox believe) they should receive the Eucharist too?

Or, if a child has received the Eucharist and starts to puke, what exactly must the priest do in Church, and what is the penalty of the mother who breastfed the child too close on to receiving the Eucharist? If it happens to often, can the Church cease doing that, and reserve Eucharist for later, when children don't accidentally puke every day nearly, but only when they are sick and can be told to wait until they don't feel an urge? Well, this is where Popes come in.

Obviously, some Orthodox would agree with you, by denying babies the Eucharist, we do not allow them to come to Christ and we don't listen to His words.

Perhaps you think you need to discern what Jesus really meant, perhaps some of you even deny He wanted the babies to get baptised?

Well, if you agree there are discernments to be made about what Jesus meant, you don't really mean listening to Jesus is sufficient either, you are then saying discernments must be made.

We agree, discernments must be made, but we also agree Jesus gave us a very "broad hint" or actually a very clear instruction on who is chiefly responsible for making them.

So, we don't agree this is a confusing verse at all.

V

Resp. to 3:18 "this verse seems to show Peter's the rock, not Jesus"

This verse seems to a Catholic to show that Jesus, already rock, made Peter rock too.

VI

Resp. to 3:48.

"This" rock would naturally be the last rock mentioned.

In Aramaic, both the proper name Peter and the common noun rock are Kipha.

This being so (this here referring to last sentence written just before), it would have been very confusing if Jesus had both named Peter rock and then so to say added "even so I am the rock on which I will build my Church", clarifying the "I" by gestures, which gestures are moreover not recorded.

And, once again, even if Jesus is the rock in Matthew 16:18, he cannot be the "thee" in Matthew 16:19.

Do you ever open a Bible and read the verse in context? Or did you just find Matthew 16:18 as a wikipedian or googled search on Catholic claims for papacy?

VII

3:56 "Jesus was pointing to himself"

That is not in the Bible.

You cannot even get this from the use of pronoun "this", since another clear meaning of "this" is "last item mentioned" (of a certain type) and Peter was last item mentioned of the type rock, unless you want to argue (as some Orthodox do) Peter doesn't mean rock.

So, in arguing against the Papal claims, you are adding to the Bible.

VIII

4:12 "[let's be quite honest, the verse does not say that and it makes more sense Jesus was speaking to Peter about Peter as the] rock rather than himself"

Hear, hear!

That was an honest word.

IX

4:23 Comparing Scripture to Scripture, you said (Popes do that, the procedure is not bad, it is just we allow them to be final authority on what emerges from such a comparison - a thing the Bible itself obviously cannot be final authority about).

I'll be happy to oblige!

"Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:"
[Ephesians 2:20]

This says, Jesus is the main rock, but not the whole rock. The whole foundation includes other persons than Christ alone, namely prophets and apostles, chief of them of course ... Peter.

Now, an Orthodox wanting to deny Peter was given other prerogatives than just any apostle would say "look, here it says all apostles are part of the foundation, not just Peter".

Agreed, but of those twelve stones, the one closes to the chief corner stone is ... Peter. And Palamas did not even dream of denying the special position of Peter, he was just saying every local bishop is his successor.

X

Resp. to 4:54 [18] The Jews, therefore, answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou shew unto us, seeing thou dost these things? [19] Jesus answered, and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. [20] The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up in three days? [21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.

On this occasion (the last mentioned), yes, he was using "this temple" as the one locally closests to his speech, and we also see the consequence, since he was talking outside the Temple in which he had driven out merchants, he was not understood.

He probably clarified it to his apostles later, that is how John knew this was his meaning.

However, you cannot make this a good parallel for Matthew 16, since here He was speaking among His Apostles, of whom He did NOT want to be the least misunderstood.

So, no John 2:18-21 shows at least He did not every time point at Himself, if He had, the Jews might have understood Him, therefore, it cannot show He was pointing to Himself in Matthew 16:18.

And since in Matthew 16:18 He had to be much clearer than to "the Jews" (John is using this generic term for His enemies, while He is not Himself doing so in the Gospel), it is also not proof He would have used "this" in the meaning of "me", since that was not a clear meaning, proven from how Jews misunderstood Him.

5:39 You cannot prove from John 2, the text, that Jesus was pointing to Himself, even if in verse 21 it is proven He meant Himself.

If you have a Church Father who claims He was actually pointing to Himself ...

6:00 No, we Catholics are NOT confused about Matthew 18, so far it seems you are.

Also, we don't really like to be compared to the people called mostly in St John's Gospel and known since then as "the Jews".

XI

6:59 "Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded."
[1 Peter 2:6]

Since Peter is not contradicting St Paul as already cited, while he says Jesus is the chief corner stone of the foundation, he is not denying all apostles, including himself belong to the foundation.

I e, as St Augustine says, he is rock by participation.

7:12 "and he said it is not himself"

You are a bit sloppy with what you just cite, aren't you?

Where in verse 6 which you cited does he even mention himself? So, he has not said "it is not me". Again, you are adding to Scripture.

Even to 8:47 : by saying the Rock mentioned in Matthew 16:18 is Peter, we are not denying the Rock is Christ.

Again, Jesus in Himself, Peter by participation.

So, therefore, in proving the Rock is Jesus Christ, you have not proven the Rock is not Peter. And that stating this was the meaning of Christ's words, verses 17 to 19 of Matthew chapter 16.

Leaving out verse 18, and checking two surrounding verses now:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. ... [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

This is obviously one of the verses where Orthodox claim Apostles were given same thing in general as here Peter alone. John 20:21-23.

But John 20 is only speaking of forgiving sinners or not forgiving them. Matthew 16:19 is speaking of WHAT-ever, not just of WHOM-ever.

Btw, this seems to indicate, Popes both had a right to bind on Geocentrism, making a heresy of disbelieving it, and then later to loose on Geocentrism, making it so one is no longer risking damnation for NOT being a Geocentric.

However, this would perhaps depend on how solemnly the binding was. Catholic doctrine usually has it, once a Pope (who is really a Pope, not a fraud like Bergoglio seems to be) has solemnly defined sth, no Pope after him can loose this.

On the other hand, once a Pope has solemnly defined an act or belief is licit, like in Fridays not to fast all the way to evening, like first Christians did, no Pope after him could bind?

Not quite, since a definition about what is licit but not obliging is usually disciplinary. And disciplinary is usually not a solemn doctrinal definition.

XII

Resp. to 9:06 I Cor 10:4

[4] And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Now, this confirms that which I cited St Augustine for, Christ is rock per se, even if in Matthew 16 He made St Peter rock by participation.

Here is what Bishop Challoner had to say of this, his commentary starts with verse 2:

[2] "In Moses": Under the conduct of Moses, they received baptism in figure, by passing under the cloud, and through the sea; and they partook of the body and blood of Christ in figure, by eating of the manna, (called here a spiritual food because it was a figure of the true bread which comes down from heaven,) and drinking the water, miraculously brought out of the rock, called here a spiritual rock, because it was also a figure of Christ.

http://drbo.org/chapter/53010.htm

The rock from which they drank was a physical rock, not identic to Christ, but it is called a spiritual rock "because it is a figure of Christ".

Well, guess what we think Christ made St Peter, back very close to the Gates of Hell, if Rob Skiba is correct about Mount Hermon, where Caesarea Philippi is? We think, in the time of Moses, Christ, as God the Son, made the rock a figure of Himself. In the fulness of time, He made Peter also a figure of himself.

Rocks are minerals. Minerals are what the stone tablets were made of.

Once, twice, God wrote the law on stone, in the New Covenant He writes the law on hearts (even if He also wrote it in sand, John 8, and the law being what He wrote in sand, I have patristic support for). Guess why He wanted a stone figure of Himself in the Old Covenant, and a human person figure of Himself in the New Covenant?

9:11 "not Peter, let alone any Pope"

Not what the verse says.

Again, you are adding to Scripture.

XIII

9:25 "There is no verse that says the Pope took over after Peter"

Guess what, there is not even a verse that says Peter died.

OK, indirectly, in John. John 21:[18] Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

St John wrote his Gospel after St Peter died. One can presumably conclude from this he died, even if it does not directly say so.

If no one took over after St Peter, who told St John?

If someone told St John, why don't we listen to his disciples on where that could be? His most famous disciples are Sts Polycarp and Papias. It is from St Papias we have the earliest mention of four Gospels together.

But St Polycarp has a disciple called St Ignatius of Lyons and a friend or disciple called St Ignatius of Antioch - whose letter to the Romans indicates, this is where the Church is centered:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God."

http://newadvent.com/fathers/0107.htm

St Irenaeus of Lyons is even more specific, he lists the first twelve Popes.

Just because a piece of history is not in the Bible doesn't mean it is doubtful.

9:30 "so it's only talking about Peter anyways"

Well, no.

Matthew 28, last verses. First, verses 16-18, whom is Our Lord speaking to?

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:

So, He is speaking to Peter, Andrew, James, John ... seven more, not yet Matthias, no longer Judas Ischariot.

What does He tell them?

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Note, He is telling this to the Apostles. Not as some would say, all the faithful. He did not say this to the five hundred disciples. He ddid not say this to the women who followed Him, just the Apostles.

There is more than one indication it means they were having successors.

• 1) The command implies all nations. But some nations were not yet reached (think China) when the Apostles lived, some did not even exist back then.
• 2) It says He is with them "all days". While each of the eleven is indeed with Him in Heaven now, how is He with them in what He commanded them? Well, because they have successors to this day. The Catholic bishops.

And if all eleven have successors through all the bishops, it is at least reasonable St Peter specifically has successors to one specific series of bishops.

To Roman Catholics, that is the bishops of Rome, the Popes, while all other bishops, local bishops or lower, are successors mainly of the other Apostles.

To Palamas, that is the local bishops (including that of Rome), while all bishops below local bishop, all "chorepiscopoe" in Greek terminology, all "Weihbischöffe" in German termonology are mainly succeeding the other Apostles.

XIV

10:02 In your terminology both Paul and earlier Peter "admitted Jesus Christ has to be the rock of the church"

Why "admitted"? Are you seeing them as on our side?

Are you being adversarial to them?

"there is no other"

Not what it says, you are adding to the Bible!

[Unless by "other" he means "completely other" which we do not take St Peter or successors to be.]

10:15 In Matthew 16 Christ "has to be the rock of the Church"

We agree, that is why He could in verse 18 make Peter (formerly Simon) rock by participation.

You know, when God called Abram Abraham, when God called Sarai Sarah, God meant sth.

When Christ calls Simon Peter, He means business too.

Abraham is Father of Many. Hmmm .... "one is your father who is in heaven"?

So, God is Father of Many in and of Himself, Abraham became so by participation.

Even when a man makes a child, he is not the primary father of the child, God is, so Abraham being ancestor of Hebrew nation (Samarians, Jews and Palestinians) through Isaac does not change God's Fatherhood.

Same way making Peter the rock does not change God's, Christ's rockness. Or rockitude.

10:27 "[that is the only verse] a person will ever use to prove Peter [...] has to be the rock"

No, I just used all the other rock references you gave as well, plus one you have so far not given Ephesians 2:20.

10:35 I don't think you have tons of verses, except against you.

None is for you when denying Peter is the rock, and if you pretend proving Jesus is the rock proves Peter isn't, you are setting up a strawman on what it means when Peter is said to be the rock.

When Jesus made Peter the rock, He did not cease to be rock. The chief corner stone.

If we had been claiming He ceased or never was, you would have had tons of evidence against that claim, but that is simply not our claim. Check out what we say instead of putting things in our mouths!

There is no verse John 2:42.

You mean John 1:42! [He later changed that.]

[42] And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

In other words, the name Peter was not just a nickname, it was a promised name, a title of nobility.

There are parallels:

Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.
[Genesis 17:5]

Abraham, as mentioned. God is father of all Christian nations, but God made Abraham father of them too.

Jesus is the rock, but He made Peter rock too.

Saying: Thou shalt not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name. And he called him Israel.
[Genesis 35:10]

In this we see how Jacob by becoming Israel becomes the key person of the covenant. After an angel of God had wrestled with him - and he had won.

At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus is starting out to wrestle with the Apostles, and who wins the blessing? Peter, this makes him the key person of the covenant.

11:50 "which is by interpretation a - what? - stone, so oops"

You have another translation, but the Greek word is Petros, and if some have claimed this means the same as Lithos (normal word for stone), well, Jesus is called Lithos too in I Peter 2:6.

"Is he a rock or is he just a stone?"

It's like asking if I Peter 2:6 (come on, you cited this verse yourself!) claims Jesus is "the rock" or "a stone". Your dichotomy is unwarranted.

If a rock is larger than a stone, Jesus is rock (as foundation) with some other stones, Himself chief corner stone, namely Prophets and Apostles, Ephesians 2:20.

Being a stone is not the opposite of being a rock!

Here is Nestle Aland, the word in the Greek is not Lithos, but Petros:

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:42 ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

Also, Kipha in Aramaic is not "stone" but actually rock.

The Greek normal word for rock, Petra, would have been inappropriate for St Peter, since it sounds like a female name.

12:51 While Christians are lively stones, there is an architecture.

The foundation is not "Jesus alone", but Jesus with Prophets and Apostles.

However, there is an architecture between the Apostles as well, as revealed in John 1:42 and Matthew 16:18, especially as compared with the new names Abraham and Israel.

13:33 You claimed JOhn 1:42 called Peter a "stone" in the same sense as other living stones (I Peter 2:5).

Nestle Aland does not have "petroi zôntes", but "lithoi zôntes":

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΠΡΩΤΗ 2:5 καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας εὐπροσδέκτους θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

So, you have no warrant to claim Peter is just one of the stones, any more than to claim Abraham is just one of the nations or Israel is just one of the children of Abraham.

Besides, John 1:42 and Matthew 16:16-19 between them prove that Peter is a key person for the new covenant, like Abraham and Israel for the old one.

"he is not some special"

Oh, yes, he is!

13:54 "They are trying to make you think it is the same passage"

No, we are not.

We are precisely claiming it is two different ones, and that John 1 is about the beginning of Jesus acting, as much as Genesis 12 is about the beginning of God acting with Abraham.

You are strawmanning Catholicism, again!

"Matthew 16, Jesus meets Peter later"

What do you mean by "meet"? They had spent all the time between together, or most of it. Peter was His disciple, that means student, and Peter, like other students, spent l o t s of time with the Professor, in this case the one Professor.

No, this Catholic Apologist is not trying to make you think John 1 and Matthew 16 are same incident, but that it is two incidents related to same name change.

Now, if he is saveable, that should make him think.

At least I hope it makes some other people think. But probably more over internet than over face to face talk.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Gertrude
16.XI.2017