I'd say the danger is in asking people to interpret it, or give their opinion.
If there is a better word, that is one thing, but there can be only ONE interpretation if it is read right.
That is why sentence diagramming is important, and that is why context is important and that is why previous useage of words and context matter.
And that is why Peter and Rock are not compatable. :) Peter and Rock fail all those tests. And that is not opinion. It is previous usage of the word, it is sentance structure, it is context of the passage.
Only GOD is the Rock in all Biblical passages where the Rock is used to denote a spiritual meaning, never a man.
and theone passage earlier someone posted where rock was used to denote a situation, if rock there was Abraham, so is the hole in the ground. And if rock there is Abraham, then who is the hole in the ground?
rock in that passage in Isaiah had to be a situation that Israel was in. Context, context, context.
Sentence diagramming has absolutely nothing to do with what Christ said. He delivered His words in Aramaic which were transcribed into Koine Greek. His words hold meaning and His disciples understood Him.
2000 years down the road, the only trustworthy 'understanding' of His words comes from the original text.
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Sola Scriptura is how it should be interpreted.
Well look who just caught up!
Context! Yes, that's right, my friend. Context is the name of the game! And if you pay attention to historical context, you'd understand that the primacy of Peter has been established since the time of the Apostles and has been affirmed from the beginning by the same Church that gave you the very bible with which you have the unmitigated effrontery to use as a tool to discredit the authority of the Church.
And, of course, we're supposed to accept it that your reading is the right one. Hmmm. I think I'll stick with the scholars.
That is why sentence diagramming is important, and that is why context is important and that is why previous useage of words and context matter.
You do know the original texts had no punctuation, don't you? Good luck with the sentence diagramming.
2000 years of scholarship disagree with your johnny-come-lately sentence structure and context. What you've stated is strictly your opinion based on faulty interpretation, and your interpretation is not Scripture.
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). John 1:42
Kephas = Cephas = petra/petros = Peter
Petra and petros are the Greek forms of the Aramaic Kephas (Cephas), meaning rock, and are genderized. Peter is the anglicized form of petros. Genderization in this manner is not a part of the Aramaic languages. Therefore, the gender distinction found in the Greek is not valid but is a necessity of translation and usage.
See how that fits into your sentence diagramming.
The problem here is that Greek is an inflected language (like Latin - I dunno about Aramaic, NYer?) with gender, neither of which occur in English. Sentence structure in English fills the function that inflection performs in Greek. So word order doesn't matter in Greek, and you're wasting your time diagramming sentences. Everybody (at least everybody who can read Greek) knows the position and function of each word without bothering to diagram anything.