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.