but is the rock(peter) that the church was built on will? or faith?
I think will is the foundation of faith - will is a constituent of the human person (as is soul, intellect, emotion, instinct, etc.) but faith (like hope, or love) is not a constituent in the same way, it's a product, if that makes sense?
"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
This preceeds the famous foretelling of Peter's denial of Christ.
This is fundamental to Christianity - it is a religion of 'being', not 'knowing', it is a religion of 'conversion', not 'initiation' - the initiatic rites are rites of introduction. 'Knowledge' says nothing about the man, what he does says everything.
To be a Christian, especially today (as ever) requires an act of will, in the face of uncertainty, and an act of courage (moreso today as the west is effectively no longer a Christian mileau). The same applies to being a Buddhist, a Jew, whatever.
Christianity holds that human faith, towards God, is met by an infused faith from God - it is a mode of Divine Union - that strengthens the will ... but this is a whole other debate ...
In short it's not knowledge of Christ that saves, its faith in Christ that saves, and 'faith' assumes we act as we believe ... unfortunately, what we say we believe, and what our actions say about what we believe, are often two very different things.
Is saying 'satan get behind me' what a strong wilful person would profess or one gathering attempting to find his faith? I'd also think that standing on water even for a moment takes more faith than will
I view it as Peter didn't think - especially the account of walking on the water, which reads like a Roadrunner cartoon (my favourite) he climbs out the boat, walks on the water, looks down and realises he's walking on the water, and begins to sink ...
... of course, the symbolism of the event is the point.
and lastly it is my understanding that more than 600 men came to arrest Jesus, not a mob a cabal (a name for a unit of soldiers), which meant Jesus's men were not only numerous but well armed
You've lost me here? Where does it say Christ was attended by a well-armed group?
I have often questioned the 'sword' issue. In my more speculkative moments I have said (and I think here) that in his spare time Peter would probably enjoy bouncing rocks off Roman skulls - but he was a fisherman, so why would he need a sword? And why would the occupying powers let him walk round with one (whole areas of sociopolitical uncertainty here)
What I do understand is that as a sailor and fisherman Peter would need a knife, and a serious knife at that; but why would the Messenger of Peace tell his disciples to go out and arm up, if he had no intention of fighting anyway?