• Attention All Comstar Customers, We are pleased to report that our HPG systems update was completely successful. Service is fully back online. Sincerely, Comstar Precentor Dune

Religion What is the Church of Jesus Christ?

Stargazer

Well-known member
This is spun off from a discussion I was having with user @ATP in the "What religion do you profess?" poll thread. ATP thought I should "remove" Protestantism (and Islam). He's kind of going further than just saying they are false belief systems, but that you can use "logic" to show that it is "impossible" for them to "exist". It's a little hard to follow, but near as I can tell his argument is this: Protestantism claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus started the Church in 33 AD when he ascended to heaven. Protestantism started in 1517. Jesus didn't start Protestantism, ergo Protestantism simply cannot be the Church of Jesus Christ.

My response to that argument is first to define what the Church of Jesus Christ even is. Biblically speaking, there is one Church (big "C") of Jesus Christ, which is made of all people who profess to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. A church (little "c") is a community of people who preach a set of beliefs and practices. If a given church preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible, it is a valid part of the greater Church of Jesus Christ.

The Protestant movement may have started in the 16th century, but Protestants have always argued that they preach the Gospel as taught in the Bible. They also often argue that the Roman Catholic church has replaced the Biblical Gospel with man made traditions. If those claims are true, and my definition of the Church of Jesus Christ is true, then Protestantism is part of the true Church of Jesus Christ and Roman Catholicism is not.

I challenge @ATP to provide a different definition of the Church of Jesus Christ, and to show why his definition must be true. Because if my definition simply could be true, then there is nothing illogical about operating from that definition and believing Protestantism to be the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Now, to specifically respond to his last post in the thread:

Hmmm...let see:
1.So,20.000 + protestant churches are one Jesus church-REALLY? then why Jesus said that he would built one church on Peter,not 20.000+ ?

2.That church which existed in 147AD was catholic church.So,catholic church was Jesus church in 147AD,but now it is 20.000+ protestant sects ? REALLY ?

3.I proved nothing - logic did it.Becouse simple logic is enough to knew,that id church was made in 33AD,then it must existed from 33AD to 2021AD.
None of protestant churches did so.

1. Jesus never said that he would build the church on Peter specifically. And he certainly never said he would build it on a priestly position that Peter started and passed on to others in Rome.

2. Actually, no, I don't believe the church in 147 AD was the Roman Catholic church as we know it today. The church in 147 preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. The Roman Catholic church has replaced the Biblical Gospel with man-made traditions.

3. If you're talking about the Church of Jesus Christ, yes, it has existed from 33 AD to today. Protestantism is part of the Church of Jesus Christ insofar as it preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
This is spun off from a discussion I was having with user @ATP in the "What religion do you profess?" poll thread. ATP thought I should "remove" Protestantism (and Islam). He's kind of going further than just saying they are false belief systems, but that you can use "logic" to show that it is "impossible" for them to "exist". It's a little hard to follow, but near as I can tell his argument is this: Protestantism claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus started the Church in 33 AD when he ascended to heaven. Protestantism started in 1517. Jesus didn't start Protestantism, ergo Protestantism simply cannot be the Church of Jesus Christ.

My response to that argument is first to define what the Church of Jesus Christ even is. Biblically speaking, there is one Church (big "C") of Jesus Christ, which is made of all people who profess to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. A church (little "c") is a community of people who preach a set of beliefs and practices. If a given church preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible, it is a valid part of the greater Church of Jesus Christ.

The Protestant movement may have started in the 16th century, but Protestants have always argued that they preach the Gospel as taught in the Bible. They also often argue that the Roman Catholic church has replaced the Biblical Gospel with man made traditions. If those claims are true, and my definition of the Church of Jesus Christ is true, then Protestantism is part of the true Church of Jesus Christ and Roman Catholicism is not.

I challenge @ATP to provide a different definition of the Church of Jesus Christ, and to show why his definition must be true. Because if my definition simply could be true, then there is nothing illogical about operating from that definition and believing Protestantism to be the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Now, to specifically respond to his last post in the thread:



1. Jesus never said that he would build the church on Peter specifically. And he certainly never said he would build it on a priestly position that Peter started and passed on to others in Rome.

2. Actually, no, I don't believe the church in 147 AD was the Roman Catholic church as we know it today. The church in 147 preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. The Roman Catholic church has replaced the Biblical Gospel with man-made traditions.

3. If you're talking about the Church of Jesus Christ, yes, it has existed from 33 AD to today. Protestantism is part of the Church of Jesus Christ insofar as it preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible.


You are unable to undarstandt what you read.I never said,that falce religions do not exist.I only stated,that logic could show which faith - like islam and protestantism - are false.But they exist,like other false religions.
Difference between,let say,buddhism and protestantism is that o could not prove logically that buddhism is false.But both are false,and both exist.

About Peter as a rock and when Jesus started HIS church.:

Matthew 16:13-19 -
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

before he resurrected,he gave power to Peter.And after he resurrected - John,21,17-18.
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

So,Jesus Gospel say that,you could claim otherwise - but you are arguing with Jesus,not me.
And if you defy that,then,for your information,there is no even one place in Gospel when Jesus said that he is God,or that Holy Spirit is God,or that Trinity exist.

If you defy place when Gospel say that Peter get keys to Kingdom and become head of Jesus Church,then you could defy Jesus as God even more.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
You are unable to undarstandt what you read.I never said,that falce religions do not exist.I only stated,that logic could show which faith - like islam and protestantism - are false.But they exist,like other false religions.
Difference between,let say,buddhism and protestantism is that o could not prove logically that buddhism is false.But both are false,and both exist.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the issue is I can't understand what I read. You are not communicating clearly, down to your posts being full of spelling and grammatical errors. That's part of why I said it was hard to follow.

About Peter as a rock and when Jesus started HIS church.:

Matthew 16:13-19 -
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

before he resurrected,he gave power to Peter.And after he resurrected - John,21,17-18.
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

Jesus says "on this rock I will build my church." That begs the question, what "rock" is Jesus referring to? The early church fathers actually didn't interpret this to mean Jesus would build the church on Peter. The "rock" could mean the truth of the answer Peter gave (that Jesus is the Messiah). Another interpretation found in early Church father writings is that the "rock" is all of the disciples, not just Peter.

Then there's the matter of the keys. Is Jesus conferring a specific power and privilege on Peter, or making a more general statement about the disciples, believers, etc? I think a couple chapters later is very relevant. Jesus makes a reference to binding on Earth and binding in heaven - but he's applying it to any believers who follow these instructions, not just Peter. It is not an authority limited to Peter.

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
Matthew 18:15‭-‬20 ESV

And if you defy that,then,for your information,there is no even one place in Gospel when Jesus said that he is God,or that Holy Spirit is God,or that Trinity exist.

Try John 12, where John specifically identifies Jesus with Yahweh as described in Isaiah. Or Hebrews 1, where the author identifies the Son with Yahweh as described in Psalms. It's trivially easy to show that the New Testament teaches Jesus is God. If you don't think so, then you're ignorant about Biblical teaching.

If you defy place when Gospel say that Peter get keys to Kingdom and become head of Jesus Church,then you could defy Jesus as God even more.

Nope, one is thoroughly Biblical, and one isn't.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
You are unable to undarstandt what you read.I never said,that falce religions do not exist.I only stated,that logic could show which faith - like islam and protestantism - are false.But they exist,like other false religions.
Difference between,let say,buddhism and protestantism is that o could not prove logically that buddhism is false.But both are false,and both exist.

About Peter as a rock and when Jesus started HIS church.:

Matthew 16:13-19 -
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

before he resurrected,he gave power to Peter.And after he resurrected - John,21,17-18.
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

So,Jesus Gospel say that,you could claim otherwise - but you are arguing with Jesus,not me.
And if you defy that,then,for your information,there is no even one place in Gospel when Jesus said that he is God,or that Holy Spirit is God,or that Trinity exist.

If you defy place when Gospel say that Peter get keys to Kingdom and become head of Jesus Church,then you could defy Jesus as God even more.
It's extremely easy to defy the idea that Peter was head of the church, the entire doctrine requires taking a single specific verse out of context and ignoring many, many other verses that say otherwise, as well as ignoring the terms of the verse itself.

For starters, in the original Greek Jesus uses a term for "rock" which is more properly translated "Rock-Mass" or "Crag." He uses the feminine form, specifically πέτρᾳ which would be inappropriate to refer to Peter, who Jesus uses the masculine form for differentiating the two. So a look at the actual scripture vs. reading a translation reveals that the comparison is already shaky. Most bibles do refer to Peter as Πέτρος, small stone, in vs. 18 but that still doesn't square with the use of feminine πέτρᾳ, rather than Peter's Roman name, for the Rock-Mass on which the Church is to be built.

The context also makes it pretty shaky. What's the matter under discussion throughout the verses? Jesus' identity as the Son of God, not Peter. Further the idea that Jesus was calling Peter the Rock, in this case, relies on the fact that the word Peter means little rock. But did Jesus call him Peter? No. They were speaking Hebrew, and Peter's Hebrew name was Simon, meaning "The Listener." The scriptures were written down in Greek and the names were translated, but the pun people rely on for their "Peter is the Rock" argument doesn't exist in the original Hebrew words, where Jesus usually refers to Peter as Simon. Indeed in Matthew 16:17 Jesus refers to him as Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, literally Simon Bar-Jonah (Son of Jonah).

In the context of the gospels themselves, it's apparent the disciples did not see Peter as having been elevated. Just two chapters later they are arguing about who is the greatest, and Jesus uses the illustration of a child to dissuade them from such thinking. Two chapters after that in Matthew 20 the mother of James and John attempts to get Jesus to put her sons, one on his left hand and one on his right. Even at the Last Supper, they begin another quarrel over which of them is the greatest, right in front of Jesus himself! But if Peter had been established as the foundation of the church at this point, why would they be having such an argument? They'd already know Peter was the greatest. Instead, it's apparent the Apostles thought no such thing.

Finally, the Bible repeatedly refers to Christ himself as The Rock and Chief Cornerstone. 1 Corinthians 10:4: And drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
What term do they use for "That Rock" in this case? πέτρᾳ, not Peter's name but the same term for Rock-Mass Jesus used earlier because the Christ is also the Rock. Jesus also compares himself as being the Chief Cornerstone in the parable of the Tenants at Matthew 21, which I'll get to in a moment.

Paul shows that the church is built on Jesus as the chief cornerstone in Ephesus 2:19,20. Peter himself gets in on that action at 1 Peter 2. At vs. 4 he refers to the entire congregation as "Living Stones" as Jesus as the chief cornerstone in vs. 6, which is Peter quoting Jesus himself who made that statement in Matthew 21:32/Mark12:10/Luke 20:17. These scriptures in turn are Jesus quoting the prophecies at Isaiah 28:16 and Psalm 118:22.

If one wishes to go outside the Scripture and look at Church officials it's apparent that the idea of Peter being the Rock is quite recent. As recently as 1870, the Bishop of Strossmeyer's address at Bosnia where he soundly tears apart the idea that Peter was the first Pope, on multiple bases, both some of those I used above along with historical information and the church's own records. It's somewhat lengthy but a worthwhile read for seeing the logic of taking Jesus as the Rock. Of course, as the record shows, they tried to Cancel him when they couldn't overcome his arguments.

"Therefore, to resume, I establish: (1) That Jesus has given to His apostles the same power that He gave to St. Peter. (2) That the apostles never recognized in St. Peter the vicar of Jesus Christ and the infallible doctor of the church. (3) That St. Peter never thought of being pope, and never acted as if he were pope. (4) That the Councils of the first four centuries, while they recognized the high position which the Bishop of Rome occupied in the church on account of Rome, only accorded to him a pre-eminence of honor, never of power or of jurisdiction. (5) That the holy fathers in the famous passage, 'Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,' never understood that the church was built on Peter (super Petrum) but on the rock (super petram), that is, on the confession of the faith of the apostle. I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter and that the bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the church, but only by confiscating one by one all the rights of the episcopate.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I'm sorry, but I don't think the issue is I can't understand what I read. You are not communicating clearly, down to your posts being full of spelling and grammatical errors. That's part of why I said it was hard to follow.



Jesus says "on this rock I will build my church." That begs the question, what "rock" is Jesus referring to? The early church fathers actually didn't interpret this to mean Jesus would build the church on Peter. The "rock" could mean the truth of the answer Peter gave (that Jesus is the Messiah). Another interpretation found in early Church father writings is that the "rock" is all of the disciples, not just Peter.

Then there's the matter of the keys. Is Jesus conferring a specific power and privilege on Peter, or making a more general statement about the disciples, believers, etc? I think a couple chapters later is very relevant. Jesus makes a reference to binding on Earth and binding in heaven - but he's applying it to any believers who follow these instructions, not just Peter. It is not an authority limited to Peter.

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
Matthew 18:15‭-‬20 ESV



Try John 12, where John specifically identifies Jesus with Yahweh as described in Isaiah. Or Hebrews 1, where the author identifies the Son with Yahweh as described in Psalms. It's trivially easy to show that the New Testament teaches Jesus is God. If you don't think so, then you're ignorant about Biblical teaching.



Nope, one is thoroughly Biblical, and one isn't.

1.Then follow that,my friend - all existing religions are real,if i made church of @ATP it would be as real as any of 20.000 protestant sects.
Only one religion could be true,not 20.000.,but we could use logic to check for sure which are false - and in case of protestants and muslims we could prove that.

2.Jesus said in Gospel you venerate that Peter is rock,on which Jesus church would be builded.You say about early church fathers.Where is your Gospel only?
Jesus gave power of keys to Peter,not to everyone.Everybody could ask for anything with other person and Jesus would gave that.It is not keys to Kingdom.

3.I wrote about what Jesus said.And he said that Peter is rock ,and that he have keys to Kingdom - but never said "I am God"
Show me, where Jesus said "I am God"? you could not? exactly.

4.Jesus said that Peter is Rock - and it is unbiblical in your opinion.
Jesus never said,that he is God - but it is biblical,even if he never said that.Interesting,i feel like when i found one real commie and try discuss with him.He also claimed that white is black.
But marxism is religion,too - so i undarstandt,that true belivers would always defy reality.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
1.Then follow that,my friend - all existing religions are real,if i made church of @ATP it would be as real as any of 20.000 protestant sects.
Only one religion could be true,not 20.000.,but we could use logic to check for sure which are false - and in case of protestants and muslims we could prove that.

2.Jesus said in Gospel you venerate that Peter is rock,on which Jesus church would be builded.You say about early church fathers.Where is your Gospel only?
Jesus gave power of keys to Peter,not to everyone.Everybody could ask for anything with other person and Jesus would gave that.It is not keys to Kingdom.

3.I wrote about what Jesus said.And he said that Peter is rock ,and that he have keys to Kingdom - but never said "I am God"
Show me, where Jesus said "I am God"? you could not? exactly.

4.Jesus said that Peter is Rock - and it is unbiblical in your opinion.
Jesus never said,that he is God - but it is biblical,even if he never said that.Interesting,i feel like when i found one real commie and try discuss with him.He also claimed that white is black.
But marxism is religion,too - so i undarstandt,that true belivers would always defy reality.


First, if by "real" you mean "true" - no, that doesn't follow. In order to be true, a church would have to show that it preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. And for the record, I consider the different Protestant denominations- conservative, Bible-believing denominations at least - to be the same religion. Presbyterians, Baptists, independent Bible churches, Anglicans, Methodists -- as long as they believe in and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible, I consider them to be brothers and sisters in the one true Church of Jesus Christ. There are liberal Protestant denominations that I consider to be a separate religion, because when it comes down to it they no longer preach the Biblical Gospel. Preaching the true Gospel is what defines the Church of Jesus Christ.

Second, no, Jesus never said Peter is the rock in Matthew 16. Never. He said he would build his church on "this" rock, and by "this" he could have been referring to the truth of Peter's answer rather than to Peter himself. With the keys, he could have been addressing all the disciples, and two chapters later he makes a reference to a similar power to "bind and loose" that simply any group of believers joined together would have, nothing specific to Peter. None of these are Biblical proofs of the Roman Catholic dogmas of the primacy of Peter or the primacy of Rome, and I think @Bear Ribs did a good job of further refuting those dogmas as well.

Third, I very easily could show where the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God. I already gave a couple references, but if you want me to go in detail, I'd be glad to - but that would be a whole other thread. Do let me know if you'd like to discuss that. For the purpose of this discussion, no, I reject your comparison that you can't show Jesus to be God according to Biblical teaching.
 

ATP

Well-known member
First, if by "real" you mean "true" - no, that doesn't follow. In order to be true, a church would have to show that it preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. And for the record, I consider the different Protestant denominations- conservative, Bible-believing denominations at least - to be the same religion. Presbyterians, Baptists, independent Bible churches, Anglicans, Methodists -- as long as they believe in and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible, I consider them to be brothers and sisters in the one true Church of Jesus Christ. There are liberal Protestant denominations that I consider to be a separate religion, because when it comes down to it they no longer preach the Biblical Gospel. Preaching the true Gospel is what defines the Church of Jesus Christ.

Second, no, Jesus never said Peter is the rock in Matthew 16. Never. He said he would build his church on "this" rock, and by "this" he could have been referring to the truth of Peter's answer rather than to Peter himself. With the keys, he could have been addressing all the disciples, and two chapters later he makes a reference to a similar power to "bind and loose" that simply any group of believers joined together would have, nothing specific to Peter. None of these are Biblical proofs of the Roman Catholic dogmas of the primacy of Peter or the primacy of Rome, and I think @Bear Ribs did a good job of further refuting those dogmas as well.

Third, I very easily could show where the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God. I already gave a couple references, but if you want me to go in detail, I'd be glad to - but that would be a whole other thread. Do let me know if you'd like to discuss that. For the purpose of this discussion, no, I reject your comparison that you can't show Jesus to be God according to Biblical teaching.

1.You could consider 20.000 + protestant sects as one church - problem is,they do not agree with you.
And how do you knew what real Gospel is ? 20.000+ sects exist,becouse you could not find that using sola scriptura.That is why you have 20.000 + protestant church,and one catholic , one orthodox ,and few eastern.Becouse if you want one church,you need pope or patriarch.Which use Tradition.

2.And Jesus never said that he is God,too.But he certainly said that church is builded on Peter and Peter get key to the Kingdom.

3.And when New Testament said that Jesus is God? you could have logical conclusion,but Jesus never said "I am god" ot "Holy Spirit is God" or "Trinity exist and is made from God,me and Holy Spirit"
ASll that is concluded from text - but for that you need Tradition to back it and pope/Patriarch who,using Tradition would say that it is true.
 

stephen the barbarian

Well-known member
2.And Jesus never said that he is God,
john 11: 25
Jesus said to her, “I Am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

note the use of the term "I am" or "Ego eimi" in Greek, and in Jewish tradition that's were we get the name of God, Yahweh. (lit. "I Am.)
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
But never said "I am God" when he told to Peter then he is Rock on which Jesus church is build.
He never told Peter that. "On this rock" doesn't have to refer to Peter and historically early church fathers interpreted it as referring to the truth of the response Peter gave. Stop blatantly misrepresenting what the Bible says.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top