Christ is The Rock

[Heidi]

Actually, the rock is the the rock on which they were standing at Caesarea Philipi. That rock was where the pagans worshiped their gods which were carved into the rock. Ceasarea Philipi was the traditional pagan site for idol worship.

What Jesus meant was that he was now offering salvation to the Gentiles by conquering even the pagan gods the epitome of which, was Caesarea Philipi.

So that is why Simon is renamed the Rock?

But Simon isn't named the rock in that passage. Jesus said; "On this rock, I will build my church." Everyone who went to Caesarea Philip knew what the rock was that Jesus was talking about. They were standing on it and looking at it because the whole area was called "the rock" because in it were carvings of pagan idols. It would be helpful if you visited Caesarea Philipi to see jsut what Jesus was talking about to his disciples.

And that's what Jesus was talking about. Only the Catholics have misread that passage which then made them distort the whole Christian religion thinking it was built on Peter instead of the teachings of Christ. :roll:

 

[francisdesales]

But Simon isn't named the rock in that passage. Jesus said; "On this rock, I will build my church."

That would be a very odd thing, from the text, Heidi. That is a lot of somersaults and cartwheels to come up with that. What is wrong with the simple explanation?

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. 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.

Jesus asks the disciples who He is, some of them answer Him, and then Simon answers correctly. Immediately following, Jesus calls Simon blessed and then IDENTIFIES HIM as "Rock". This is key... "I SAY UNTO THEE", the person Jesus is speaking with, is IMMEDIATELY identified as "Peter".

You would have us believe that Jesus is having a conversation with His apostles, and then Simon alone, and then, literally in mid-sentence, "I say onto thee, rock that I am standing on, you are rock???" People don't call the rock they are standing on - 'thee". It refers to a person. What an invention! :D :D :D :D

You can do better than that. The grammar just doesn't allow it. Quite simply, Jesus was identifing Simon, just as Simon had JUST PREVIOUSLY DONE, through the Father's inspiration. As usual, the simple explanation is best. The closer is that Paul calls Simon "Kephas". Why does Paul call Simon a rock, a word that has never been used to name a human before?

That wacky Paul... If he only had you to help him figure this all out...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I have no problem admitting that I am wrong when the evidence is provided.

Not only were you wrong, but you are in denial. STILL! The evidence is in bright blue, buddy.

I posted the pertinent data. Are you really such a fool that you can't recognize that you said something that was proven wrong by the Scriptures?

You said

"First of all, there is no evidence that god endorsed Matthias the replacement for Judas", on Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:36 pm.

This is like the fifth time I have posted this... And I posted Acts 1:23-24 over and over...

Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two (Matthias and Barsabas) thou hast chosen

Tom, I have given you plenty of evidence, repeatedly, of your gaffs. I have given you a face-saving out so you wouldn't have to look even more ridiculous trying to prove something you could NOT prove (you continuously ignored my questions over and over). Rather than show me where Jesus says HE is the foundation in Matthew 16, like you claimed, you decided to focus on "ad hominem"... I got your number...

The text ITSELF says God CHOSE Matthias!

 

[Heidi]

But Simon isn't named the rock in that passage. Jesus said; "On this rock, I will build my church."

That would be a very odd thing, from the text, Heidi. That is a lot of somersaults and cartwheels to come up with that. What is wrong with the simple explanation?

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. 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.

Jesus asks the disciples who He is, some of them answer Him, and then Simon answers correctly. Immediately following, Jesus calls Simon blessed and then IDENTIFIES HIM as "Rock". This is key... "I SAY UNTO THEE", the person Jesus is speaking with, is IMMEDIATELY identified as "Peter".

You would have us believe that Jesus is having a conversation with His apostles, and then Simon alone, and then, literally in mid-sentence, "I say onto thee, rock that I am standing on, you are rock???" People don't call the rock they are standing on - 'thee". It refers to a person. What an invention! :D :D :D :D

You can do better than that. The grammar just doesn't allow it. Quite simply, Jesus was identifing Simon, just as Simon had JUST PREVIOUSLY DONE, through the Father's inspiration. As usual, the simple explanation is best. The closer is that Paul calls Simon "Kephas". Why does Paul call Simon a rock, a word that has never been used to name a human before?

That wacky Paul... If he only had you to help him figure this all out...

Regards

Sorry, but you are changing that verse to read: "Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church." But that verse doesn't say that. It says; "And I tell you that you are Peter and upon this rock, (which rock? The on they are standing on) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."So it is the Catholics who are changing the bible, as usual, just as they change; Matthew 1;25, Matthew 23:5-10, Leviticus 26:1, Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4;15, Colossians 2:8, Luke 1:46 and msot of the rest of the bible as well.

So since the Holy Father of the Catholic is the pope, then they have a different religion than Christians who only have one Father and that is God. So Christians & Catolics don't share the same bible, as the catholics admit. ;-)

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry, but you are changing that verse to read: "Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church." But that verse doesn't say that. It says; "And I tell you that you are Peter and upon this rock, (which rock? The on they are standing on) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Heidi, I quoted the KJV bible from Blue Letter. Take it up with them. I cut and pasted without changing ANYTHING. If you cannot accept that, sorry.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church..."

Thou are rock and upon this rock...

What is interesting is that you don't catch the immediately preceding verse:

Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus says "Thou are rock and upon this rock..."

Do you see that Jesus is talking to Peter? He repeats what Peter does - Peter identifies Jesus and Jesus identifies Peter. Your explanation bends the meaning to a laughable degree. You would have Jesus, in mid-sentence and mid-discussion, suddenly addressing a rock in the first person... :P :P :P

"So it is the Catholics who are changing the bible, as usual, just as they change; Matthew 1;25, Matthew 23:5-10, Leviticus 26:1, Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4;15, Colossians 2:8, Luke 1:46 and msot of the rest of the bible as well.

This discussion is about "Christ is the Rock". If you would like to discuss another of your fantastic accusations somewhere else, feel free to do so.

So since the Holy Father of the Catholic is the pope, then they have a different religion than Christians who only have one Father and that is God. So Christians & Catolics don't share the same bible, as the catholics admit. ;-)

Catholics are Christians, since we believe that Christ is God. Now, if we don't meet YOUR personal definition of what a Christian is, I guess I could invent a definition and say YOU don't comply with it and outcast you, as well. However, REAL Christians are not about outcasting others. Someday, you may find that in your bible...

Regards

 

[Toms777]

There are apparently those who would have us believe that Jesus switched the topic back and forth.

The topic was Jesus - and Peter gave Him a testimony, and Jesus said that it was that testimony, with the focus on Jesus, that he would build His church. the church is built uopon the foundation of Christ (1 Cor 2:11).

Jesus NEVER changed the focus of the discussion onto Peter. that would be contrary to the context of the passage and a contradiction to what we read throughout scriopture.

A church built upon fallible man will fail. The gates of hell cannot prevail against a church that has Christ as its foundation.

Tom

 

[Toms777]

I have no problem admitting that I am wrong when the evidence is provided.

Not only were you wrong, but you are in denial. STILL! The evidence is in bright blue, buddy.

I refuted your comments from scripture and will gladly do so again. But I have requested your commitment to deal with me with civility and honesty and so far I have not seen that commitment.

 

[francisdesales]

I refuted your comments from scripture and will gladly do so again.

:
The only refuting you have done is refute that you were wrong. AT LEAST twice, definitively and without any doubt. We could count more times, but that would just open up more debates.

Please, don't you realize you are wasting my time and making youself look more foolish every time you broach this subject?

I have requested your commitment to deal with me with civility and honesty and so far I have not seen that commitment.

Honesty? That would be refreshing to see from you. You keep making these "refutation" claims, but really, I don't have a clue what you have refuted except for the fact that you have been mistaken.

Here is an example of your "commitment to honesty" Gaghh...

How about Jesus is the foundation of Matthew 16??? You continue to make this claim and I have asked you to prove that on more than three occasions, but I see nothing. Just another of those proclamations akin to "God did not endorse Matthias" or "Rock always refers to God in the Bible"? So when you say you will "gladly do so again", is that your commitment to honesty you are speaking of? To gladly make up stuff and then deny it later?

Why don't you just put your money where you mouth is and just answer my questions that I have posted, beginning with "Jesus is the foundation of Matthew 16. Just drop the "I was never proven wrong" line. It is getting embarrassing to constantly reminding you.

 

[aj830]

But Simon isn't named the rock in that passage. Jesus said; "On this rock, I will build my church." Everyone who went to Caesarea Philip knew what the rock was that Jesus was talking about. They were standing on it and looking at it because the whole area was called "the rock" because in it were carvings of pagan idols. It would be helpful if you visited Caesarea Philipi to see jsut what Jesus was talking about to his disciples.

And that's what Jesus was talking about. Only the Catholics have misread that passage which then made them distort the whole Christian religion thinking it was built on Peter instead of the teachings of Christ.

You just admitted that Simon was renamed the Rock by Christ when you called him Peter. Peter means Rock. He is called Cephas also many times. Why would he be called the Rock after this instance if Christ was not renaming him? And if he isn't named the Rock in that passage when is he renamed the Rock?

 

[Toms777]

I refuted your comments from scripture and will gladly do so again.

:
The only refuting you have done is refute that you were wrong. AT LEAST twice, definitively and without any doubt. We could count more times, but that would just open up more debates.

Yeah, yeah yeah...if you are so sure of your position, why don't you commit to being civil and honest and let's get into God's word and I'd be more than happy to once again refute your position. In the last round, I refuted your claims, and you ignore me at first and when i continued, you turned nasty and made up false quotes.

Can you position stands on it's merits alone? Why are you unwilling to take that chance?

I am more than willing to take on your position, but I will not tolerate abuse.

 

[francisdesales]

Yeah, yeah yeah...if you are so sure of your position, why don't you commit to being civil and honest and let's get into God's word and I'd be more than happy to once again refute your position.

Tom, if you want another try, I'm game. However, I expect some courtesy as well. Perhaps if you are shown wrong, you might admit that? Otherwise, this is no longer a discussion, but your attempt to win an argument. I'm not interested in that.

In the last round, I refuted your claims, and you ignore me at first and when i continued, you turned nasty and made up false quotes.

Of course. Sure. Again, I don't recall any such refutation. But let's move on. You'll have your opportunity to try again - unless your ideas are no longer valid.

Why don't you just answer my question that I have asked nearly a dozen times:

Where does Jesus say HE is the foundation in Matthew 16? You keep saying it, but you don't offer any evidence. Perhaps you can start from there so we can put your last embarassing episode behind us.

Regards

 

[tim-from-pa]

If I may jump in with some biblcal thoughts regarding the stone, we can safely conclude that Israel of the OT had types and shadows fulfilled in Christ.

So, if a stone was somewhere in their history, that would be the equivalent of the rock which Christ would build His church.

Actually, such a stone did exist----Paul alludes to a legend that the Israelites carried a stone (which was actually Jacob's Pillar) in the wilderness with them, and was the same stone that supplied them water.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

This (pillar) stone according to some biblical references was the same one that the Davidic Kings of Israel and/or Judah were coronated on all thru the ages.

Here on this earth, the stone is symbolic and was associated with the Davidic Kings and Genesis suggests it was under the custody of the tribe (house) of Joseph (Genesis 48:19, 49:24).

The very fact that the stone was associated with the Kings shows that it was linked with Christ as Paul taught. If any human has temporary authority (until Christ comes again), it has to be in conjunction with the blood lineage of King David, over nations that are His people (c.f. Genesis 35:11).

Any other claim is from an impostor.

 

[Toms777]

Yeah, yeah yeah...if you are so sure of your position, why don't you commit to being civil and honest and let's get into God's word and I'd be more than happy to once again refute your position.

Tom, if you want another try, I'm game. However, I expect some courtesy as well. Perhaps if you are shown wrong, you might admit that? Otherwise, this is no longer a discussion, but your attempt to win an argument. I'm not interested in that.

Francis,

Because you THINK that I am wrong and declare it is no reason for me to be forced to agree with you, especially when you have not dealt with my response. When I have shown passages that outright stated the exact opposite to what you claimed, you just ignored them, so you have no grounds to be pointing fingers. And you have no basis for assuming that you are judge and jury. I would love it if you would admit that you were wrong or at least deal with my response / refutation to your comment instead of just ignoring my comments.

Second, I want a stated commitment from you to cease your ad hominems and to cease all mention and reference to the persons involved in the debate, and to deal solely with the topic at hand. If you feel that you are right, then demonstrate it through diligence with respect to the topical matter by getting into God's word.

Please advise if you agree to these ground rules, and if so, we can move forward.

Tom

 

[Toms777]

Here on this earth, the stone is symbolic and was associated with the Davidic Kings and Genesis suggests it was under the custody of the tribe (house) of Joseph (Genesis 48:19, 49:24).

The very fact that the stone was associated with the Kings shows that it was linked with Christ as Paul taught. If any human has temporary authority (until Christ comes again), it has to be in conjunction with the blood lineage of King David, over nations that are His people (c.f. Genesis 35:11).

Any other claim is from an impostor.

Tim,

That is good input. I agree that we find that much of the OT is prophetic of the coming of Christ, and we find that the NT supports that truth.

Thanks for your comments.

Tom

 

[francisdesales]

Because you THINK that I am wrong and declare it is no reason for me to be forced to agree with you, especially when you have not dealt with my response. When I have shown passages that outright stated the exact opposite to what you claimed, you just ignored them, so you have no grounds to be pointing fingers. And you have no basis for assuming that you are judge and jury. I would love it if you would admit that you were wrong or at least deal with my response / refutation to your comment instead of just ignoring my comments.

Second, I want a stated commitment from you to cease your ad hominems and to cease all mention and reference to the persons involved in the debate, and to deal solely with the topic at hand. If you feel that you are right, then demonstrate it through diligence with respect to the topical matter by getting into God's word.

Tom,

Don't bother. I have thought about it, and I don't think conversing with you can be anything but an exercise in futility and frustration. Just the fact that you cannot admit you are plainly wrong on Matthias and the God = Rock bit, how exactly does that point to the fact that you are actually interested in learning about the Word?

It is all about you winning an argument - this is clear by your refusal to say "I'm wrong, I made a mistake, thanks for clearing that up".

No, you refuse to admit such an obvious gaff, so how how am I going to show you that my point of view makes sense, when you can't even admit such a fundamental and plain oversight? You are clearly in denial and I leave the judgment of others to see how much in denial you really are.
Thus, further conversations with you are bound to be pointless and circular.

Please don't bother me anymore on this subject. I'm not interested anymore, since all you want from me is some promise that I won't point out you are wrong again...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

If I may jump in with some biblcal thoughts regarding the stone, we can safely conclude that Israel of the OT had types and shadows fulfilled in Christ.

So, if a stone was somewhere in their history, that would be the equivalent of the rock which Christ would build His church.

Actually, such a stone did exist----Paul alludes to a legend that the Israelites carried a stone (which was actually Jacob's Pillar) in the wilderness with them, and was the same stone that supplied them water.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

This (pillar) stone according to some biblical references was the same one that the Davidic Kings of Israel and/or Judah were coronated on all thru the ages.

Here on this earth, the stone is symbolic and was associated with the Davidic Kings and Genesis suggests it was under the custody of the tribe (house) of Joseph (Genesis 48:19, 49:24).

The very fact that the stone was associated with the Kings shows that it was linked with Christ as Paul taught. If any human has temporary authority (until Christ comes again), it has to be in conjunction with the blood lineage of King David, over nations that are His people (c.f. Genesis 35:11).

Any other claim is from an impostor.

Tim,

Thank you for your input. I agree with your point that the OT points to Christ, and that the mention of "rock" in the OT points to Christ. I believe, however, that we shouldn't be rigid in our application of metaphors. Rock doesn't ALWAYS mean God. Also, in the NT, we find that metaphors given to Christ are often posited to the Apostles/Believers as well. For example, BOTH are called the foundation, stone or rock, and Temple of the Spirit. Since the Church, WE, are the Body of Christ, it follows that these metaphors CAN be used interchangeably between us and Christ BECAUSE we are PART of His Body.

And while all of this certainly is a factor in exegesis, we should allow for the literal sense of the Scriptures to also be taken into account. It is clear to me that Simon is called rock, just as Abraham is called rock in the OT (Is 51). In both cases, these men have received a new ministry as Father of God's People and have had a name change. I think there is a parallelism between the two that the Jews of Jesus time certainly saw and understood - the fact remains that the other writers of the NT call Simon "Kephas", the Aramaic word for Rock. THEY recognize the great honor given to Simon on account of the FATHER'S will in Matthew 16.

Just as the Father enabled Simon to know Jesus' identity - "you are the Messiah...", Jesus also identified Simon "You are rock...". That is the clear sense of the Scriptures and it is what the other writers of the Bible verified when Paul call Simon 'Kephas", not lithos, not petra, not petros, but the Aramaic word Kephas.

Regards

 

[Toms777]

Tom,

Don't bother. I have thought about it, and I don't think conversing with you can be anything but an exercise in futility and frustration. Just the fact that you cannot admit you are plainly wrong on Matthias and the God = Rock bit, how exactly does that point to the fact that you are actually interested in learning about the Word?

Francis,

Actually, I was not wrong on Matthias - you were and scripture says so, but it is good to know that you are unwilling to agree to a simple ground of not being abusive with those who disagree with you.

What comes to my mind is why you believe what you do when you faith cannot stand a simple challenge, why it cannot be defended on the basis of the facts of scripture alone? If it requires abuse to defend it, then why? You should give that some thought.

It is all about you winning an argument - this is clear by your refusal to say "I'm wrong, I made a mistake, thanks for clearing that up".

Franics,

It is all about the truth of God's word, not about an argument. I am surprised that you would make that comments since you are the one that choose to go the abuse path.

No, you refuse to admit such an obvious gaff, so how how am I going to show you that my point of view makes sense, when you can't even admit such a fundamental and plain oversight?

No gaff - if you think so, why were so afraid to look at my response? Why are you so afraid to deal with the issue that you refuse to agree not to use abuse? Why must you reort to calling it a gaff rather than simply dealing with what I showed you from scripture? Why not just agree to deal with what scripture says, without abuse, and let's look at it?

I can think of only one reason - fear that you may be wrong.

I have no fear of being wrong. I do not care where scripture leads - I will follow. If I am challenged and find that I am right, I can more strongly defend what His word has to say because of that challenge. If I find that I am wrong, I have just come closer to the truth because of the challenge. With that focus on love of truth, it does not matter what the outcome is, and that is why I am happy just to be studying His word. I do not need to get abusive. You may want to ask yourself why you feel that there is a need for abuse.

Thus, further conversations with you are bound to be pointless and circular.

If you are unwilling to agree to that simple ground rule (which is consistent with the rules of the board), the I agree, further discussion with you is pointless.

Tom

 

[francisdesales]

Actually, I was not wrong on Matthias - you were and scripture says so... "

Tom, you must be a total nutcase. This is why I cannot speak with you on a serious level ...

You wrote Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:36 pm.

First of all, there is no evidence that god endorsed Matthias the replacement for Judas",


I quoted the Bible that shows you are wrong...

Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two (Matthias and Barsabas) thou hast chosen

What sort of fool CONTINUES to deny they were wrong, after I have posted this in large colored font over and over again? Is it not clear to you? This is exactly why I cannot have a conversation with you. You have issues that go beyond anything that can be solved here.

If you continue to bother me, I will alert the Moderators. I tire of this harassment. Please do not address me anymore.

 

[Toms777]

Tom, you must be a total nutcase. This is why I cannot speak with you on a serious level ...

See Francis - that is the abuse that I am talking about. If you are unable to hold a civil discussion, and you feel that you must abuse, then you must feel that you position is terribly weak.

You wrote Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:36 pm.

First of all, there is no evidence that god endorsed Matthias the replacement for Judas",


I quoted the Bible that shows you are wrong...

Actually, you quoted out of context - you did not read fully what it says, and that very quote demonstrates your error.

But you tell me that you are unwilling to stop your abuse long enough to discuss.

If you continue to bother me, I will alert the Moderators. I tire of this harassment. Please do not address me anymore.

Please do. I have no doubt that they would be interested in your abusive comments and harassment (i.e. "nutcase"). Perhaps you also forget my request for you to end your abuse quite some time ago, and you continued to harass me. I trust that this will be the end of that harassment.

Tom

 

[Toms777]

It is interesting to note the consistency of scripture in the use of these terms, Rock and stone. Throughout scripture, the Rock is God (Father or Son):

Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.
NKJV

Deut 32:15
Then he forsook God who made him, And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
NKJV

Deut 32:18
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
NKJV

Deut 32:30-31
30 How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the LORD had surrendered them? 31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let God be exalted, The Rock of my salvation!
NKJV

2 Sam 23:3
3 The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 28:1
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock:
NKJV

Ps 42:9
9 I will say to God my Rock, "Why have You forgotten me?
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Ps 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my Rock,
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation, And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.'"
NKJV

Hab 1:12
O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, You have marked them for correction.
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

As for the stone, there is much less, but here is what we do find:

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

Note this verse above. Some claim that cephas is translated "Rock", but even scripture itself refutes that point quite directly and shows that Cephas means "stone".

1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
NKJV

So, we are stones, but there are references to Jesus as a stone as well:

Rom 9:33
33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
NKJV

He is both a Rock and a Stone. That is because he is the cornerstone:

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
NKJV

The cornerstone is in fact, a rock. So Jesus can be called a stone (cornerstone), but is more frequently called the Rock and even the reference to Him being a stone refers to a Rock (cornerstone). On the other hand, there is no reference in scripture anywhere of Peter being called a Rock. He is a stone, as we all are stone per 1 Peter 2:4-6. This may also be a reference to the fact that Jesus is both God (Rock) and man (stone), and is the sole person to hold such a distinction.

Jesus, as the Rock, is also the cornerstone, which is the most notable piece of the foundation, but the confession of Peter that Jesus is Christ is the foundation upon which the church will be built. We see this endorsed in scripture as well, later by Paul:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

So the foundation is Jesus, not Peter. A church built upon Jesus, and the revelation of the fact that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God is the church that will stand, not a church built upon a man.