If the church was in hiding ...

[ParkerD]

Okay Parker I will bite. You got my attention. Now you say that Peter was not the Bishop Of Rome? Okay Parker you tell me then who was?

Hi, Rinnie,
Peter was the senior apostle while he was alive. No New Testament source refers to him as bishop, either of Rome or of anywhere else. An apostle and a bishop were different callings/offices.

No New Testament source says who the bishop of Rome was at any point in time. (This does not mean there wasn’t one, but it does lead to the question of why it would be important to know, given all the other cities where the gospel was being preached with no listing of the bishops of those cities given either. It does not seem to have been an important enough item of note to have had it recorded in the writings that became the New Testament.)

Have a good day.

 

[ParkerD]

Silence from ParkerD regarding this post - though he remains active in this thread.

Randy Carson,
I did see your post. As far as I’m concerned, to you I don’t exist since you have defined the person “ParkerD” in a way that I neither define myself nor identify with at all. You have made your points. You’ll be fine without a response. Have a good day.

 

[ParkerD]

But a few posts ago you said it was not so; you were only attempting to accommodate my “choice of language”.
So, are you now saying the church was in heaven, not in the wilderness or is wilderness and heaven one and the same place? Remember, you said the church was withdrawn from the earth for a long time. Therefore, the possibility of the church being on earth as well as in heaven, is excluded.

Oh, you have changed your story again. Seems you are a very unreliable witness. Did you not tell me the church was withdrawn from the earth for a long time? Must I go and look for the post where you said this?
BTW, you are slowly but surely moving closer to a Catholic position - having the ecclesia triumphans (in heaven), the ecclesia militans (on earth) and the ecclesia expectans (in purgatory).
Expect that what you never expected!

placido

Placido,
We seem to have a continuous misunderstanding that may stem from my having tried to make an assumption about your use of the word “church” without asking for you to clarify each time what you meant by the word, since it definitely has different meanings in different connotations. I certainly do think the church is wherever Christ is, so it is in heaven always, and Christ went to the spirit world and organized the preaching of the gospel there, so it was there and continued to be there after He began that preaching in 34 AD.

For practical purposes and definitions commonly understood about the use of the word “church” as both an ecclesiastical organization comprised of leadership and members, and the body of members themselves, the pure “church” that Christ established and John was writing about when he used the symbolic word “woman”, was no longer among the civilized nations after it was “in the wilderness”. That occurred at an earlier point in time in the Old World as compared with the New World, but it occurred in both hemispheres during the first few centuries after 34 AD. John was not mortal. This is why there needed to be a restoration of authority, so that mortals would again have that authority among them, with Christ always as the head of the church and the chief corner stone (not Peter).

 

[rinnie]

Hi, Rinnie,
Peter was the senior apostle while he was alive. No New Testament source refers to him as bishop, either of Rome or of anywhere else. An apostle and a bishop were different callings/offices.

No New Testament source says who the bishop of Rome was at any point in time. (This does not mean there wasn’t one, but it does lead to the question of why it would be important to know, given all the other cities where the gospel was being preached with no listing of the bishops of those cities given either. It does not seem to have been an important enough item of note to have had it recorded in the writings that became the New Testament.)

Have a good day.

But What about Oral teaching’s of the Church parker. Scripture teaches us to follow the teaching’s of the early Fathers of the Church does it not. Now isn’t that RCC teaching that Peter was the first Pope and started the Roman Church. Is not the Pope still there?

What about you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. According to the teachings of the CC Peter was indeed the leader of the Church. Remember feed my sheep and all of that.

Now according to scripture Peter was to start the Church and was given the keys to the kingdom. Are you saying Peter disobeyed God and did not start the Church. Tell me this then who did? IF not Peter?

And you are right no teaching refers to his as bishop its Rock, Rock mean Father, Father means Papa, Papa means pope does it Not?

 

[rinnie]

Hi, Rinnie,
Peter was the senior apostle while he was alive. No New Testament source refers to him as bishop, either of Rome or of anywhere else. An apostle and a bishop were different callings/offices.

No New Testament source says who the bishop of Rome was at any point in time. (This does not mean there wasn’t one, but it does lead to the question of why it would be important to know, given all the other cities where the gospel was being preached with no listing of the bishops of those cities given either. It does not seem to have been an important enough item of note to have had it recorded in the writings that became the New Testament.)

Have a good day.

Also it is important to know for this reason. AT the time of Jesus Rome was considered to be the center of the world. That is why Jesus wanted Peter to start the Church there.

And it was important to Jesus, thats why he sent Peter there. ANd that is the reason Peter went there. And actually it was noted but as you know quite well they were killing anyone who were starting the CHurch and were Christians. That is why they used code names. Its all Tradition from the RCC.

 

[ParkerD]

But What about Oral teaching’s of the Church parker. Scripture teaches us to follow the teaching’s of the early Fathers of the Church does it not. Now isn’t that RCC teaching that Peter was the first Pope and started the Roman Church. Is not the Pope still there?

What about you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. According to the teachings of the CC Peter was indeed the leader of the Church. Remember feed my sheep and all of that.

Now according to scripture Peter was to start the Church and was given the keys to the kingdom. Are you saying Peter disobeyed God and did not start the Church. Tell me this then who did? IF not Peter?

And you are right no teaching refers to his as bishop its Rock, Rock mean Father, Father means Papa, Papa means pope does it Not?

Rinnie,
When Christ asked “Simon, son of Jonas”, to feed His sheep, feed His lambs, it was clear Who was in charge. Christ was in charge. He was asking Simon Peter to teach the gospel and to preserve the teachings that Christ had already given to His sheep, His lambs. Peter never referred to himself as “the rock”. He referred to Christ as “the chief corner stone.” He and the other apostles received the commission to take the pure gospel message to “all the world,” and “teach all nations.”

Peter did also refer to the members as “stones”, as follows in 1 Peter 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.
6 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.
7 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,
8 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.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Peter certainly did not disobey God. He continued the church Christ had established. He was the senior apostle, and led and taught with kindness and love while always acknowledging Christ as the head of the church and giving praise to Him.

 

[placido]

Placido,
We seem to have a continuous misunderstanding that may stem from my having tried to make an assumption about your use of the word “church” without asking for you to clarify each time what you meant by the word, since it definitely has different meanings in different connotations. I certainly do think the church is wherever Christ is, so it is in heaven always, and Christ went to the spirit world and organized the preaching of the gospel there, so it was there and continued to be there after He began that preaching in 34AD.

Ok, it seems we are approaching some sort of agreement at last:

1. Since the church is where Jesus is and Jesus is both in heaven and on earth, it follows that the church is also both in heaven and on earth;
2. Since Jesus in not in hiding (and the church is where Jesus is), then the church was never in hiding;
3. Since Jesus promised to be with us always (and He does not tell lies), then the church was with us always.

For practical purposes and definitions commonly understood about the use of the word “church” as both an ecclesiastical organization comprised of leadership and members, and the body of members themselves, the pure “church” that Christ established and John was writing about when he used the symbolic word “woman”, was no longer among the civilized nations after it was “in the wilderness”.

If the “symbolic woman” John spoke about is the church, who is her symbolic child?

placido

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Rinnie,
When Christ asked “Simon, son of Jonas”, to feed His sheep, feed His lambs, it was clear Who was in charge. Christ was in charge. He was asking Simon Peter to teach the gospel and to preserve the teachings that Christ had already given to His sheep, His lambs. [SIGN]Peter never referred to himself as “the rock[/SIGN]”. He referred to Christ as “the chief corner stone.” He and the other apostles received the commission to take the pure gospel message to “all the world,” and “teach all nations.”

Peter did also refer to the members as “stones”, as follows in 1 Peter 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.
6 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.
7 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,
8 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.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Peter certainly did not disobey God. He continued the church Christ had established. He was the senior apostle, and led and taught with kindness and love while always acknowledging Christ as the head of the church and giving praise to Him.

I agree, I never said Peter called himself the rock, or changed his name to Peter. Jesus did.

But what does that have to do with Rock meaning Father. You asked me where scripture refers to Peter as Pope and I showed you. How does Peter being the first Pope in any way mean that we think he was in charge over God? You lost me there. Do you think because we believe that Peter was benng led by the HS that we thought Peter was God. IF so please let me explain that is not nor never the teaching of the RCC.

Do you disagree with Rock meaning Father? Or do you think because we believe that Jesus changing Peters name to Father means he replaced himself or something. Because we don’t. I just showed you scripture you asked me for.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
When Christ asked “Simon, son of Jonas”, to feed His sheep, feed His lambs, it was clear Who was in charge. Christ was in charge. He was asking Simon Peter to teach the gospel and to preserve the teachings that Christ had already given to His sheep, His lambs. Peter never referred to himself as “the rock”. He referred to Christ as “the chief corner stone.” He and the other apostles received the commission to take the pure gospel message to “all the world,” and “teach all nations.”

Peter did also refer to the members as “stones”, as follows in 1 Peter 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.
6 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.
7 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,
8 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.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Peter certainly did not disobey God. He continued the church Christ had established. He was the senior apostle, and led and taught with kindness and love while always acknowledging Christ as the head of the church and giving praise to Him

I agree

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Rinnie,
[SIGN]When Christ asked “Simon, son of Jonas”, to feed His sheep, feed His lambs, it was clear Who was in charge. Christ was in charge[/SIGN]. He was asking Simon Peter to teach the gospel and to preserve the teachings that Christ had already given to His sheep, His lambs. Peter never referred to himself as “the rock”. He referred to Christ as “the chief corner stone.” He and the other apostles received the commission to take the pure gospel message to “all the world,” and “teach all nations.”

Peter did also refer to the members as “stones”, as follows in 1 Peter 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.
6 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.
7 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,
8 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.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Peter certainly did not disobey God. He continued the church Christ had established. He was the senior apostle, and led and taught with kindness and love while always acknowledging Christ as the head of the church and giving praise to Him.

Again agree, but is it also not quite clear that he was handing over the sheep until his return?

If he had already preached it to the sheep what am I? I am not a part of the flock that Peter is to teach? Because no offense but I wasn’t here to receive that teaching at the time of Jesus! IF I go by your definition of course.

 

[ParkerD]

Ok, it seems we are approaching some sort of agreement at last:

1. Since the church is where Jesus is and Jesus is both in heaven and on earth, it follows that the church is also both in heaven and on earth;
2. Since Jesus in not in hiding (and the church is where Jesus is), then the church was never in hiding;
3. Since Jesus promised to be with us always (and He does not tell lies), then the church was with us always.

If the “symbolic woman” John spoke about is the church, who is her symbolic child?

placido

It seems fairly clear that the child is Christ:

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

 

[ParkerD]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I agree, I never said Peter called himself the rock, or changed his name to Peter. Jesus did.

But what does that have to do with Rock meaning Father. You asked me where scripture refers to Peter as Pope and I showed you. How does Peter being the first Pope in any way mean that we think he was in charge over God? You lost me there. Do you think because we believe that Peter was benng led by the HS that we thought Peter was God. IF so please let me explain that is not nor never the teaching of the RCC.

Do you disagree with Rock meaning Father? Or do you think because we believe that Jesus changing Peters name to Father means he replaced himself or something. Because we don’t. I just showed you scripture you asked me for.

Rinnie,
I think that when Christ said “thou art Peter,” He was not changing Simon’s name but was adding a descriptive word about the kind of person Simon was. (He still called him Simon many times, including after His resurrection.) I do indeed “disagree with Rock meaning Father” as a term talking about Peter, or Simon. I don’t agree that rock means father or that Peter was being described as father or papa or pope. I simply disagree. There is no scriptural basis for that belief. Tradition adds that belief, but tradition could do anything, because people make up tradition as they go along.

 

[placido]

It seems fairly clear that the child is Christ:

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

If the “symbolic woman” is the church, and it “seems fairly clear that the child is Christ” then you have the church giving birth to Christ. Can’t you see that is wrong?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Again agree, but is it also not quite clear that he was handing over the sheep until his return?

If he had already preached it to the sheep what am I? I am not a part of the flock that Peter is to teach? Because no offense but I wasn’t here to receive that teaching at the time of Jesus! IF I go by your definition of course.

Rinnie,
Peter along with the other apostles had the commission to teach all nations. John also received that commission, and had that commission still while he was alive when some of the church members and/or some of the leaders were ignoring John when they had doctrinal questions. John had more authority and certainly more of the teachings of Christ in his mind and memory than any other person whom they could have asked. There was either a communication problem or a disagreement about leadership and who was truly authorized by Christ to keep the gospel teachings and ordinances and practices pure. But John was clearly the one who had the authority and the commission, after Peter had been killed.

You are part of the flock that Peter was to teach, yes. He was to do that teaching through leading the apostles and the apostles teaching the people and preserving the pure doctrines. But if the people didn’t continue to accept the leadership given by the apostles, then the people could wander as “sheep having no shepherd”. There was no guarantee, and the epistles as well as the book of Revelation repeatedly say some of the members were straying or were falling away. John couldn’t force people to seek his leadership. Look at 3 John 1:
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

It is clear that this was not an isolated case, with the person “Diotrephes.” People were doing what people do–seeking to “have the preeminence.” It was a problem that did not suddenly go away.

 

[ParkerD]

If the “symbolic woman” is the church, and it “seems fairly clear that the child is Christ” then you have the church giving birth to Christ. Can’t you see that is wrong?

placido

Placido,
You could read Micah 4:
1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.
5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.
6 In that day, saith the Lord, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted;
7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the Lord shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.
8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.
9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.
10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.
11 Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion.
12 But they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they his counsel: for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor.

The words “church” in the New Testament and “house of Israel” in the Old Testament are synonymous, meaning the people of the covenant, or covenant people. Christ was certainly born of a woman, and she was certainly a Jew from the house of Israel.

There are several references in the Old Testament where the house of Israel is spoken of as being like a “woman in travail”. John would have been familiar with those references, and also had the Holy Spirit guiding him so that he was a prophetic witness of things to come as well as things that had already happened.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
Peter along with the other apostles had the commission to teach all nations. John also received that commission, and had that commission still while he was alive when some of the church members and/or some of the leaders were ignoring John when they had doctrinal questions.

John had more authority and certainly more of the teachings of Christ

Could you show me scripture or early teachings of the CHurch that state John had more authority and more teachings of Christ? Thanks Parker

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Rinnie,
I[SIGN] think that when Christ said “thou art Peter,” He was not changing Simon’s name [/SIGN]but was adding a descriptive word about the kind of person Simon was. (He still called him Simon many times, including after His resurrection.) I do indeed “disagree with Rock meaning Father” as a term talking about Peter, or Simon. I don’t agree that rock means father or that Peter was being described as father or papa or pope. I simply disagree. There is no scriptural basis for that belief. Tradition adds that belief, but tradition could do anything, because people make up tradition as they go along.

Yes he did change Simons name to Peter. Why do you think we call him Peter then?

[SIGN][/SIGN] What about the O.T is that enough. He changed Abram to Abraham also which means rock, And was Abraham not called Father Abraham.

 

[ParkerD]

Could you show me scripture or early teachings of the Church that state John had more authority and more teachings of Christ? Thanks Parker

Rinnie,
John received the same authority that Peter had received as recorded in Matthew 18:18-19 which was directed to the apostles.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

The gospel of John (book of John), contains many teachings and historical details that were not in the other gospels. John was with Peter and James and Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, a unique experience. After Peter’s death, John most certainly had more authority than Linus or Clement, and most certainly had experienced and received in first person more of the teachings and example of Jesus than Linus, Clement, Paul, or any other leaders, because he was with Christ in continuous association during Christ’s ministry.

 

[ParkerD]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Yes he did change Simons name to Peter. Why do you think we call him Peter then?

[SIGN][/SIGN] What about the O.T is that enough. He changed Abram to Abraham also which means rock, And was Abraham not called Father Abraham.

Rinnie,
There is a major difference between how the Old Testament describes the change in Abram’s name and how the New Testament describes how the name Peter was used.

Genesis 17:5

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Thereafter, any subsequent reference calls him Abraham.

Not so with the “descriptive name” “Peter”. Simon is still called Simon many times, or Simon Peter, or Peter, or Simon called Peter. Note the name Jesus used when He said after His resurrection,

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.”
16 He saith to him again the second time, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
17 He saith unto him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?” And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, “Feed my sheep.”

John also wrote “a stone” and not “the rock” when he described the event of Jesus designating Simon as “Cephas”:

John 1:42 And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

(In other words, Peter was steadfast and solid, and had integrity, but he was “a rock” or “a stone”, whereas Christ was the chief corner stone of the Church.)

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
There is a major difference between how the Old Testament describes the change in Abram’s name and how the New Testament describes how the name Peter was used.

Genesis 17:5

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Thereafter, any subsequent reference calls him Abraham.

Not so with the “descriptive name” “Peter”. Simon is still called Simon many times, or Simon Peter, or Peter, or Simon called Peter. Note the name Jesus used when He said after His resurrection,

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.”
16 He saith to him again the second time, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
17 He saith unto him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?” And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, “Feed my sheep.”

John also wrote “a stone” and not “the rock” when he described the event of Jesus designating Simon as “Cephas”:

John 1:42 And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

(In other words, Peter was steadfast and solid, and had integrity, but he was “a rock” or “a stone”, whereas Christ was the chief corner stone of the Church.)

Nice try there Parker but no cigar for you.

Lets try it again.

Blessed are you Simon Bar Jona;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;You are Peter and on this rock (PETRA IN GREEK) I will build my Church.

Sorry your story does not FLY! Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

Go back to the Parable of Mt 7:24-27

Gods house was built on Rock. Now sorry Jesus was a wise man would you not agree and the Lords house was built on a Famous Rock. Does scripture not tell you that.

When we remember the parable of the wise builder we understand why Jesus is building his Church on a ROCK that is ON PETER. And we also know the people who first heard that parable knew right away for Solomons Temple built on FOUNDATION STONE WE UNDERSTAND MORE OF WHAT JESUS SAID. SOLOMON BUILT THE TEMPLE AND SEALED OFF THE GATES OF HADES. Jesus the anointed one will build his church on rock and seal off the gates of Hades. The CHurch the whole community of belivers will replace solomons temple!