Let's get's down to the "brass tacks" (or is it "tax" I've never known), and reduce this to as many facts, and as little personal opinion as possible.
In John 1:42, Jesus Himself says that Simon will be called "Κηφᾶς" (which is "Cephas" when it's written in Greek). Κηφᾶς, no one can deny, means only "rock".
Later, in the same passage, the Holy Spirit inspired the author to interpret "Κηφᾶς" as "Πέτρος ".
The big whoop imardmd1 (and others on this thread I guess) are making here stems from the fact that "Πέτρος" can mean both "rock" AND "stone".
So, the reasoning goes (apparently), since "Πέτρος" can mean "stone", and in Matt 16, only "Πέτρος" is used (in reference to Simon), and since "we" (meaning Protestants/anti-Catholic Christians) know that Simon/Peter wasn't called "rock" in Matt 16 (because of the word games played there), then here, in John 1:42, the Holy Spirit must be saying that "Πέτρος " here must also mean "little stone" just as it does in Matt 16 (again according to the word games they play with "Πέτρος" vs "πέτρα" there).
I say "word games" because what's really going on in Matt 16:18 is that Jesus isn't playing a "word game" but rather a "play on words", playing off "πέτρα" by calling Simon "Πέτρος". Why did He do that there (in Matt 16:18)? Whole books have been written on that subject to be sure but probably the best answer is that since Simon was a man, He had to use "Πέτρος" rather than "πέτρα" because "πέτρα" is a feminine noun.
Regardless of all of the above, the entire confusion generated by focusing on Matt 16:18 alone, in isolation of the rest of Scripture ignores John 1:42 (and others) where Jesus Himself says that Simon will be called "Κηφᾶς", which means "rock" and only "rock", and even though the Holy Spirit goes on to clarify that "Κηφᾶς" means "Πέτρος" it's immaterial, because "Πέτρος" can also mean "rock" in addition to "stone". In other words, all that's happening in John 1:42 is that the Holy Spirit is clarifying that the Aramaic word used by Jesus is the same for both Greek words.
Otherwise, we have the Holy Spirit contradicting Jesus! Because again, the word used by Jesus (Κηφᾶς) can only mean "rock". So the Holy Spirit, when He inspired the author of John, must have meant that "Πέτρος" means "rock" as well, and not just a "stone" (or "little stone" or "pebble"as those mentioned above allege about Matt 16:18).
This is what ravenwolf has been saying all along, I believe. And I believe he/she is right.
John 1:42 provides the key to interpreting what "Πέτρος" truly means in Matt 16:18. Not some tortured, twisted word game the Protestants want, but simply that Jesus was respecting Simon's gender in Matt 16:18 by calling him "Πέτρος" there, but his true name is "Κηφᾶς", which is "rock".
It's inescapable, unless we wish to believe that the Holy Spirit contradicted Jesus in John 1:42.
That is true, and I was not unaware of it as I laid the claim. One solid, unavoidable factor is that Jesus said He would build His church, and Paul proclaims it to the believers at Ephesus (many of whom are Gentiles)in his epistle written in 62 A.D.:
Eph 2:19-22 AV:
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints,
and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."
So,this is a spiritual House of God, built with what? Peter, doubtless having read Paul's letter, explains this doctrine to the Diaspora in his first general epistle to them three years later. His conclusions are unarguable:
1 Pet 2:1-8 AV:
"Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies,
and all evil speakings,
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
To whom coming, as unto a living stone*, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones*, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone*,
elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient,
the stone* which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
And a stone* of stumbling, and a rock** of offence, even to them which stumble at the word,
being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Note: * = λίθος; ** = πέτρα
These letters will have gotten into the mainstream of circulated correspondence between church elders, and well known by John, who in writing his version of Jesus' life and teachings, made sure that Jesus' assignment of Simon as one of those living stones, a petros, and thus assuring Simon of it, was included in that story written much later than the other Gospels, about 90-94 A. D.
I think it is hard to imagine that, while influential in the first church of Jerusalem even with many concerts, that Peter or any of the other apostles imagined him(self) to be the central figure upon which it or any of the other autonomous church bodies were founded. Certainly neither Paul nor any of the Gentile churches he planted thought at all of any of the other Apostles, Peter included, were supernumaries.
Furthermore, I see no place in the NT were "Petros" was ever directly associated with the lexical equivalent of "rock." If there is one, find it and display it. The only human being to whom the meaning "petra" is attached is the Lord Jesus Christ, in either the OT (LXX) or the NT. So let's let go of the Peter positively papal promise and put it to bed as an unfulfilled hypothesis.
The above is a good and sufficient assertion that "Cephas" in context means "stone" as translated by Apostle John and interpreted by the KJV/AV panel of scholars, and nothing else.
af_vet_1981: The passage does not interpret Cephas as λίθον (a stone).
Neither does it prove that "Cephas" or "Petros" is not the lexical equivalent of "lithos," AFIK.