The conversation might not have been in Greek but the conversation and the writing of that conversation were years apart. A conservative estimate would be 17 years.
So my point stands and your feminine 'petra' vs. masculine 'Petros' theory is out the window. 'Too bad, because we didn't get a chance to get into why, if Christ meant Himself, also a man, then again, why the feminine 'petra?' It's too bad we didn't get to dig into that problem of yours also.
Who do you believe wrote the NT, HS or man?
In one sense the Spirit, and then in the physical sense man. The Apostles were promised that the Spirit would lead them all into all truth, reminding them of everything the Lord taught them during His earthly ministry. You didn't think that the Apostles would be able to remember everything they did through only human means, did you? Of course not. Everything that they managed to recall about what Christ did and said during those Brief three years is a miracle itself, and so it must have been God Who is behind the N.T. That's just obvious if you think about it for even a moment.
And which men physically wrote the N.T.? Some of them weren't even Apostles, which prompts the question, if only the Apostles were given the Spirit without measure such that their authoritative teachings were the Word of God, then how are books like Luke, Acts, and James Scripture? And the answer is that these books were authorized by the Apostles as Scripture. Determining the contents of the N.T. was one of their jobs; they wrote much of the N.T., and they approved of the rest, authenticating each of the books not written or dictated by Apostles, as Scripture.
Let's suppose Peter is the rock. Is this the kind of rock you want Christ's church to be built on?
74 Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
NOT A ROCK
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
NOT A ROCK
It's a question of what 'rock' means. The Catholic view is that the rock is the pastorate that Peter held, what today we call the papacy, which is the office of the supreme bishop of the one Church that Christ built upon Peter. No pope is perfect or infallible, they each including Peter have their flaws, but the office they hold is what the Lord built His Church upon, not any single man. The only man He could build His Church upon is Himself, and He has, and He has also chosen How to build His Church, and it is upon the 'rock' of the papacy, the supreme pastorate of Christ's Church, the first holder of which was St. Peter. This is what 'rock' means, not what you're supposing.
Would you say the church is perfect or has deviated from the truth?
Define what you mean by "church," so that I can answer the right question for you.
When I say "Church," unless I specify the Catholic Church, I mean the one Body of Christ, which are all those Catholics who are in full communion with each other, and all those non-Catholic people and Catholics not currently in full communion, but who believe in Christ. And the Church is a Society of people.
The Church as a Society of people are perfect in the sense that Christ has sanctified us and cleansed us such that we are without spot or wrinkle or blemish (Eph5:26-27KJV), and we are objectively imperfect in our flesh, as we are a cluster of sinners.
If you mean by "church," the authentic pastorate (Bishop, cf. 1Ti3:1KJV), then my answer is that their teachings in all matters of faith and morals is perfect.
