No Jesus wasn't referring to the Temple when he was speaking to Peter.  He said in the future tense.... "I will build my church." This is speaking to a future time and would begin at Pentecost which is normally referred to the birth of the Church. 

The Temple was never referred to as a church.  In fact like I said church was never about a building at all. 

The word church is only mentioned twice in the gospels but 24 times in Acts and over 60 times in Paul's letters.  It is used for both the whole Body of Believers and for local congregations but never for a building as it is used today. 

Ecclesia comes from the verb kaleo "call" and ek "out."

Ecclesia occurs 115 times in the NT.  110 times it refers to the church either local (87 times) or general (23 times).  It is interesting that all  9 times in Ephesians it means the Church of Jesus Christ (his Bride). 

I do not believe religion has anything to do with how one views the political world, try to remember I was a Democrat till 2003 when the Democratic Party nominated HanoiJohn Kerry someone I have loathed for decades.

See here is where we disagree totally G-D is the bedrock of all faith not Christ.

exactly MM.  You being a Jew do not accept Christ as God.  As a Christian, I believe Jesus was God in the Flesh. 

But we both agree that God is the bedrock of our faith.  The difference is I believe Jesus IS God. 

Very true.

I was referring to his followers over the last 2000 years.

And today's major churches each claim to be the one rightful heir to Peter's church.

Sodaiho, I'm glad you mentioned this.  I'm researching this ideology of Tikkun Olam and it's basis.  Once I have done so I would be happy to engage in a discussion with you (if you so desire).

What about the 3rd Temple?

Also what you are saying seems to stem along the lines of the Catholic church where they supposedly built the Vatican upon Peter's bones.

Then you are either deluding yourself or completely ignorant of the meaning of the words.

Graven means carved or sculpted. Image means a representation. To deny that the crucifix is a graven image is absurd as it obvious is exactly that.

Yes, I remember the issues you had with Kerry.  I don't know about your assumption though, MM.  I believe religion shapes our world view, including our political view.  Judaism has always been a religion of compassionate practice, social action, and study.  This goes way back to Abraham, who not only welcomed strangers in his midst, but hurried to treat them well as honored guests. Much later in the Pirke Avot it says the world stands on three things: Torah, Prayer, and Acts of Loving-Kindness.  

One cannot study without being open, one cannot pray (t'fileh...the act of self assesment) without being open, and one cannot perform acts of loving-kindness without being open.  This  openess refers not only to the mind, but to the heart, as well.  I see these as the essence of liberal existence.  

There is a deep commitment, reiterated throughout the Torah, but especially in the Prophets, toward social responsibility and justice.  One cannot speak of being a light to the world without being political.

At least that is my humble opinion

Yes, but what does that have to do with the party of lawyers and Ted Kennedy?

Being in favour of higher taxes for other people is not compassion. Asking the government to do something is not social action. And expecting government handouts is not study.

Jews believe that it will be built when the Messiah comes.

Muslims and Christians believe that he Messiah was Jesus and will return for that purpose.

It should be interesting to learn if today's Zoroastrians believe anything about the Third Temple.

yes, I agree with this Mason.  For one thing we don't even know what Christ looked like.  We only know what the scriptures say about him and that is he was nothing to look at.  I'm sure that was for very good reason. 

What about the rebuilt temple?  How is that related to "ecclesia?"  I believe the Temple will be rebuilt but that's dealing with the Jews only; not the Gentiles.......  2 Thess Chap 2 for one thing.  My belief is that the new Temple will lead the nation Israel to a very somber literal Day of Atonement which is the 6th Feast of Lev 23. 

How is what I'm saying going along the lines of Peter's bones?  I disagree with the CC's position on the whole Peter thing.

none of the  mainstream churches I know believe this outside of the CC.  Can you give me examples?  For instance not the Baptists, not the Presbyterians, nor the Methodists nor the Calvery church nor the Nazerene etc.   I do know most of the cults believe they are the only group or as you say rightful heir to Peter's church although I've only heard it put that way by the Catholics. 

AD, I would very much enjoy the opportunity.

This is interesting to me as well.  I think the Christian POV is that Jesus himself was the true temple. Christian theology makes the Church his body. This renders the 'gathering of nations' moot as anyone accepting Jesus as the Christ anywhere is of his body.

Most Jews have abandoned the idea of rebuiding the temple in Jerusalem, although there is a movement afoot to do so, I understand.

I understand the messiah to be less a person than a nation:  the people of the world uniting to be one with God.

As we runners say, YMMV.  (Your mileage may vary...a neat way of saying its all a matter of your own ability).

Be well.

KFC POSTS:

This is true....and that's becasue "denominations" didn't exist until the 1500s when Protestantism established them which continues to this day.

Jesus' original Church, an Apostolic teaching body, is the Catholic Chruch, the Mystical Body of Christ. It's the Church of St.Paul who taught its theological unity and described the Church as one body, one hope, having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father.  

The very presence of all the various fractured Protestant denominations shows there is no unity, no one faith, one baptism, etc. that St. Paul is describing....there is no such thing as Protestant faith and how could there be when everyone is his own pope?

The Chruch Christ instituted with Peter as its head could not cease to exist with His Death and the Apostles who pioneered its propagation, for its mission is to lead all men to salvation without distinction of time or place. Christ commanded, "Go therefore teach all nations, baptizing them St.Matt. 28:19. Nor could the Chruch ever lack strength necessary to accomplish its task since Christ Himself is perpetually present with it according to His promise, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." 28:20. So, not only must the Chruch exist today and continue always to exist, but it must be the same as it was in the days of the Apostles. To say it's anything other than the CC is saying that Christ failed in His purpose, or that He made a mistake when He said the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it.

KFC posts:

AD POSTS 161

KFC POSTS 162

Here's the connection between the OT and the New Testament Church Christ established...

In the Old Testament the Jewish Tabernacle was the work of God.  According to Exodus, 25-31, Leviticus, Numbers 1, 3-8, 17, and 18, God drew up its plan, gave its dimensions, described its sacred furnishings, vessels for its service, the vestments and ornaments for the Priests who would minister there. He gave it a suitable constitution, appoionted its rulers and defined the extent of their power.

Since the Tabernacle of the Old Law (which was but a shadow, a figure of the Chruch to come), was the work of God, surely the Chruch of the New Testament, the substance, the reality, would likewise be the work of God.

It's easily shown that it was Christ Himself who established the Church when He declared His intention of founding a Church, by the institution of a living authority when He said to Simon Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Christ intended to personally build His Chruch and gave it all the elements of a true body and a ruling authority. We know this becasue He added, "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. St.Matt. 16:19. This authority was ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED when Our Lord after His resurrection said to Peter, "Feed My lambs; Feed My sheep."

During His life on earth, Christ Himself was the visible head of the Infant Chruch, but after His Resurrection, the office of visibly "feeding the flock" was to be discharged by another to whom Christ gave the authority and office. As so as the followers of Moses were to be one compact body, so too were the followers of Christ to be One Body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

the First Pentecost and after the descent of the Holy Ghost, the Chruch appeared before the world, a compact, fully organized society, with the Apostles at its head and St.Peter exercising supreme jurisdiction. 3,000 souls received Baptism and were added to the Church.

It wasn't the Apostles who devised the plan for this body, made Baptism the condition of membership, appointed the first head, and invested him with special authority. It was Christ who did all this and by doing so founded the Church which is the Catholic Church.

If the Holy Bible teaches anything plainly, it's that Christ established a visible Chruch and this rules out KFC's novel idea that the Chruch is a collection of all believers. The Chruch is a definite orgainzation founded not upon shifting sand, but on a rock. The Chruch is heirarchal, composed of rulers and subjects. "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you bishops to rule the Church of God, which He has purchased with His own Blood." Acts. 20:28.

Its members are admitted by a Baptismal rite; they must hear and obey, "He who hears you hears Me, He who rejects you, rejects Me." Christ compares His Chruch to a "flock", a "sheepfold", a "city seated on a mountain", a "kingdom". He calls it "My Church", not churches.

47 times the Chruch is found in the OT and in each passage it means but one Church, one way of worshipping the Lord before the coming of Christ. That was the Jewish Chruch, the religion and the law of Moses established by God. From no other altars did God receive the sacrifice of prayer. They were all abominations to Him. "He who turneth away his ears to the hearing of the law, his prayer shall be an abomination." Proverbs 28:9. In the NT, the Chruch is mentioned numerous times and we find but one Chruch mentioned....which is the "pillar and ground of truth..".

St.Paul writes, "I write these things to thee hoping to come to thee shortly, but in order that thou mayest know, if I am delayed, how to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is the Chruch of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth." So there we have it from Saint Paul to us.....The Church is the house of God, which is the pillar and mainstay of the truth." (again to KFC's definition of the Chruch as "all believers" how can all believers be the pillar and ground of truth)?

 St.John speaks of the Chruch "at Smyrna", "at Ephesus", "at Philadelphia" etc. but these are different dioceses of the Church. They all belonged to the Catholic Church under St.Peter.   This is Biblical as well as historical.   

lula posts :

KFC,

Of the highlighted part.....Are you really saying this? Is this the same KFC who reads and studies Scripture?

Here's the passage, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Chruch, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

Explain how and why would Christ say this to Peter but mean Himself.

Christ is the ROCK, the Cornerstone...and here in St.Matt. 16:18, Christ designates Peter the rock-foundation of His Church. It means is that Peter was placed first in authority, first of the Apostolic Twelve. Christ's Chruch which is His Mystical Body was divinely established to exist all time and therfore can't be dissolved. Christ called His Church His household, flock, kingdom, and it stands to reason that such a household, flock, kingdom, must have someone in it who ranks forst in authority, who has primacy, the first rank, That person was Peter and the continuance of that household, flock, kingdom necessitates a successor if the Chruch is to last until the end of the world as Christ promised it would. They are designated by the CC as popes. Today, Pope Benedict XVI, is StPeter's 265th successor.  

Christ is the Good Shepherd...and in St. John 21:15-17, He designates Peter as the head shepherd of His flock, when He tells him to "Feed My lambs, Feed My sheep."

Christ is the KEY BEARER...and in St.Matt 16:19, He designates Peter to be the key-bearer in His Chruch.

St.Ambrose wrote, "Where Peter is, there is the Chruch." So all we have to do is look for St.Peter's successor and we find the Chruch established in 33AD by Christ. Everyone else is outside the Church which must make Christ very sad.

And this is where KFC and I stand united.

lula posts:

KFC POSTS #174

Sometimes you say the darndest things.......Christ is the tangible image of the unseen, invisible God. .....God "was nothing to look at" you say?????

Protestants have pictures of Jesus in their homes and in their churches and in many of their Sunday school books for teaching children.  So, if one measured Protestants by the same rule as you do with me here, then by using these "graven" images they would be practicing the idolatry of which they accuse Catholics.

MasonM,

I am aware of the modern dictionary definition of "graven" and "images" but my statement was in regard to text and full meaning of the First Commandment of Almighty God about the graven image or idol being used as the object of divine worship and thus constituting idolatry.   

The use of religious statues is a thoroughly Biblical practice.  

You are using such a narrow view, I am surprised at you.  Political action is one form of social action, lobbying, advocating, all are forms of social action. Of course asking government to do something for its people is social action. There are no such thing as government handouts.  That's code for granting money to those we don't think deserve it. Money is collected for the common good.  This money is allocated on a budgetary basis, as needs arise, and through law. I could easily say that money to government war contractors is a handout. Or medical aid a handout.  Or food a handout.  Jews should not look at it this way,  We should look to need and take care of need.   When you recite the Daily Miricles or the Amidah what's on your mind? 

Be well. 

no I don't say Lula.  Scripture says.  You should know me certainly by now!!! 

"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorows and familiar with suffering."  Isaiah 53:2

I think scripture is clear he wasn't anything to look at from a physical point of view.  We all know that lovely looking people have doors opened for them that those with not so nice looks can't go through so easily.  We tend to look on the externals not the internals.  This makes sense with God's MO according to Paul as well when he said:

"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called.  Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.  He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things and the things that are not to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."  1 Cor 1:26-29

Anything I read about Paul from outside sources as well as his own words seem to indicate that Paul was a small man who was relatively unattractive.  He was not the type to be noticed UNTIL he opened his mouth and taught about God.  His words either brought people to their knees or brought people to a fit of rage.  Same message, different reactions. 

agree.  But Catholics go beyond what Protestants do.  The kneel, they kiss and they pray to these statues Lula as well as to rosary beads.  I know.  Been there.  This goes beyond rememberances.  It's not the same thing.  Nice try tho. 

BTW where do you find rosary beads in scripture? 

no it's not, unless you're talking about the Pagans. 

you didn't read this in context.  You are focusing on the wrong part.  You deliberately have been trained to do so.  Read the whole section in context. 

really?  It says that here? 

Did you not notice Christ mentions this THREE times? 

How many times did Peter deny Christ? 

This has nothing to do designating Peter as head of anything.  It has ALL to do with reinstating Peter after he fell so badly. 

Three times he denied him.  Three times Jesus said feed my sheep. 

I'll bet you were not taught this:

Q. What happened when Peter denied Christ that last time?

A.  The cock crowed.

Q.  When did Jesus reinstate Peter?

A.  The morning, the same time as when the cock usually crows.

Q.  Why?

A.  Because everyday when Peter would get up to start his day and hear the cock crowing, he'd be reminded that he denied God in the flesh.  He'd be reminded how he denied the one he came to love the most.   So Jesus, in his wisdom, chose that same time period to reinstate Peter so now when Peter heard that cock crow he'd be reminded of Christ's gentle forgiveness and grace.

What about Paul?  Didn't he feed sheep?  How about John?  Timothy?  What about Godly Pastors today? Aren't they in the sheep feeding occupation too?  In fact the leader of the very first council was JAMES...not Peter (Acts 15). 

You're being taught this Lula but it's not biblical.  It's CC teachings as in catechism. 

lula posts:

kfc posts:

But you didn't and this is where the rubber meets the road...for in reality no one commits idolatry by making, having, looking at and even kissing images of Christ whether as a beaufiful new born Baby wrapped in swaddling cloths or as the Child being presented to the Lord in the Temple, or as the Boy of 12 teaching in the Temple, or as a wounded, sorrowful Man of 33 crucified on the Cross.

If I look affectionately at and kiss the photo of my mother,  am I honoring, adoring, or worshipping the image or the piece of paper itself? Or is it a tribute of love and respect offered to my mother? Same thing when Catholics reverence the Crucifix and statues only in so far as they remind us of Christ, of God of our BLessed Lady, and of the Saints.

Unfortunately, your agreement is negated becasue it's followed with (I) agree, but....

You said:

That you persist in this futile exercise of accusing us Catholics of praying TO these statues and TO Rosary beads when I've already said over and over that Catholics do not adore or worship images nor do we pray TO any images or TO the Rosary beads themselves reveals your preconceived bias.  

Let me reiterate.....that you conclude that Catholics pray TO statues, etc. is not my fault, rather it's your own fault in that you have judged us wrongly.  You're making the mistake of judging interior dispostions from exterior conduct. You have no right to accuse us of praying TO statues.