Exclusive: Menorrah vs. Totnak: The 1st Century Church was completely apostatized

[Ateo]

We now move to item 9 of the debate -- the Second Affirmative Constructive, which is the start of the second part of the debate. I would like to clarify what are allowed in this part. In standard debates, there is a second constructive followed by a set of rebuttals. Unfortunately in our debate format, we did not design in a rebuttal. Rebuttals are oftentimes the most interesting part of the debate, but we have not seen them yet because they are not allowed in the Q&A.

So, let us make a minor adjustment to what is allowed. The Second Constructives can be used for a mixed purpose: (A) Firstly, it can be used to expound the debater's position some more like in a standard constructive. That way, it can be used to open up additional points or just to shore-up any positions that have been weakened during the Q&A. (B) Secondly, it may also be used as a rebuttal and to attack the opponent's positions. This is the part of the debate that we are yet to see.

There is no need to indicate your assent. I simply allowed both uses as you deem fit. PM me if you have any questions or burning concerns.

Ateo

[Ferdinand]

Wrong thread!

[Menorrah]

After the cross-examination, the negative agreed with the affirmative’s biblical definition of apostasy and he also agreed that it happened already. Totnak said “biblical apostasy is only applicable to individuals, albeit large number of individuals, but not to the whole church”.

Thus, the contention now is whether the first century church was completely apostatized or not. Somebody must cause the first century church to apostatize so let’s continue our study on who led the first century church into apostasy completely?


Principle of Authority

People follow a person of authority. When the authority says “go”, the followers go (Matthew 8:9). Under this principle, a man of authority can lead people out to darkness; thus, Jesus said “children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (v12).”


Man of Lawlessness – the apostate man

The man of lawlessness, as per 2 Thess. 2:3-11, is a man of authority. He exalted himself up in the temple of God (the church) and even called himself God. The coming of the lawless one was in accordance with how Satan works. He used all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that served the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceived those who are perishing. He was called the Son of Perdition, which means an apostate man or a man who fell away from faith (John 17:12). According to Dr. Joseph Benson’s Commentary, Volume 2, pp. 409, “this was to be a great apostasy, by way of eminence, the general, the grand departure of the whole visible church into idolatrous worship….”

Who is the man of lawlessness? According to Guiness’ Romanism and Reformation, 1891, pp. 25 and 26, as he quoted Boniface VIII, “the pope is of so great dignity and excellence, that he is not merely a man, but as if God and the vicar of God. The pope alone is called most holy, divine monarch, and supreme emperor and kings of kings….whatever the pope does seems to proceed from the mouth of God. The pope is as God on Earth”.

In “The Catholic Encyclopedia” by Herrmann, The Pope is the “final authoritative in the Universal Church (pp. 308) and also has coercive power (pp. 447).

Thus, an act of one man becomes an act of the church. The apostasy of one man becomes the apostasy of the church. But where is the apostate church?


Babylon, the Prostitute – the apostate church

Totnak was so happy to report that Pasugo said “Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula'y siyang Iglesia ni Cristo” (the Catholic Church was at first the Church of Christ). This is the same as saying “The Prostitute was at first a Virgin”. The Prostitute, the Great Babylon becomes “… a dwelling for demons and a haunt for every impure spirit…” (Rev. 18:2). In parallel notes by Apostle Paul, he described it as giving “attention to deceitful spirits and doctrine of demons (1 Tim. 4:1 NASB). The doctrines of demons are forbidding to marry and to abstain from meat (verse 3 Douay-Rheims). The Catholic Church forbids priests to marry (Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, pp. 401) and command Catholics to abstain from meat on Fridays (Handbook of Catholic Faith, pp. 424).

Thus, the Catholic Church is the Babylon, the Prostitute. The Catholic Church is the apostate church.

Was it at first a Virgin? Those who are deceived and in the Babylon are former people of God as Revelation 18:4 said “Come out of her, my people”. The people of God are called pure virgin (2 Cor. 11:2) which also referred to as the church.

Thus, the Prostitute was at first a virgin.


Skandalizo -- how it all started?

Again, let’s go back to first century when Jesus said “You will all fall away” (Mark 14:28). “Fall away” is Skandalizo in transliterated Greek (Strong: 4624 a stumbling block where one may cause to trip, to cause to fall away, to be offended). When I said it was the beginning of apostasy, it doesn’t mean that the apostles were apostates as some suggest. It is similar to Mark 4:16-17 “… like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away (Skandalizo).

There are two kinds of rock – wise man’s rock (Matt. 7:24), which is a strong rock and a stumbling blocks of rocks (Mark 14:16-17), which are smaller stones where one may trip. Cephas (Aramaic) or Petros (Greek) is a small stone or rolling stone (Hoffman, “Cartaphilus, the Wandering Jew” pp. 395).

Let’s then study Matthew 16:18. How many types of rocks are mentioned there?

I also say to you that you are Petros (a small stone, rock), and upon this petra (large rock, bed rock) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

When Christ built his church, he mentioned the two kinds of rocks. Peter (Cephas) means small rock or stone which causes Skandalizo. Christ knew it already that when he built the church, the stumbling block was just by its side. Was Peter really the stumbling block? Let’s ask Jesus himself, in succeeding verse he said:

But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan ! You are a stumbling block (Skandalon, Strong: 4625) to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." Matthew 16:23 NASB

On the same chapter as the “falling away (Skandalizo), Peter denied Christ three times (Mark 14:68-72). He went back to fishing after Christ death(John 21:3) and did not understand Christ (John 21:15-17). Peter also wrote this “The church that is in Babylon…(1 Pet. 5:13).

Babylon, remember? That’s how it all began.


The King of Babylon – the cause of it all

In Isaiah 14:3, 12-14, in reference to the King of Babylon who said “You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” This is in parallel to the works of the man of lawlessness which is in accordance to how Satan works.
According to the New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm0 ), “… St. Thomas … teaches … that Satan sinned by desiring to be "as God", according to the passage in the prophet (Isaiah 14)…”

Satan led the church into complete apostasy. He used the Papacy as his deceiving tool to fool people into believing that the church where they belong is still the true church. It’s not anymore. “Come out of her, my people”- Rev. 18:4


The Daughters of Babylon – the offsprings

The Protestant groups were the daughters of Babylon. They grew out of Catholicism. Thus, also the bible said: “Come, Zion! Escape, you who live in Daughter of Babylon!” Zech 2:7


What happened to “The Jesus Christ guarantee”?

Jesus guaranteed that the gates of Hades will not overcome the church. I agree. As a matter of fact, Hades will be thrown into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:14) while the Church of Christ will be saved (Rev. 20:6).

Matthew 28:20 is conditional. It says “…observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” John 14:16 is also conditional. Let’s read verse 15 “If you love me, keep my commands.” In both cases, the condition is keeping the commandments.

In my first constructive, the first century church was led into apostasy with the introduction of philosophies of men (Greek Spirits) or traditions whereas Jesus warned “Why you break my commands for the sake of your tradition?” This is the same as the words of Jesus to Peter “not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." The Catholic Church admitted that it introduced philosophies of men such as Philo’s and Plato’s into the doctrines. By middle of fourth century, the Greek Spirit prevailed. It included the Trinitarian doctrine which wasn’t taught by any apostle.

Thus, the condition wasn’t met.

If the church was built upon a strong rock, why was it completely apostatized?

Let’s not forget, we are discussing only about the first century Church of Christ. It was completely apostatized. Christ, knowing that there was a stumbling block along its side, reserved a third group when he said “I have other sheep, not of this fold…(John 10:16)”. Christ ‘other sheep don’t belong to the first century fold. The first century fold included first, the Jews and second, the Gentiles (Rom. 9:24). What happened to the first century fold – the two groups out of the three (2/3rd)? In the same prophecy where Christ said “you will ALL fall away” and quoted Zech. 13:7, let’s continue reading to verse 8:

“It will come about in all the land,” Declares the LORD, “That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it.”

The first century fold was cut-off and perished. The first century church completely apostatized. It became the dwelling for demons and haunt for impure spirit. It became the Catholic Church, the apostate church and her daughters, the Protestant groups.

“Come out of her, my people! …Escape, you who live in the daughter of Babylon.”

[Totnak]

Question #1:

The Affirmative had posted in his 2nd Constructive the following:

“I also say to you that you are Petros (a small stone, rock), and upon this petra (large rock, bed rock) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

The Affirmative made use of the Greek words “Petros” and “petra” on the above post. However, he also mentioned the following:

Cephas (Aramaic) or Petros (Greek) is a small stone or rolling stone

My question now would be, what does the word “kepha” mean in Ancient Aramaic?


Question #2:

The Affirmative also had the following:

“It will come about in all the land,” Declares the LORD, “That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it.”

My question now is, were all the three parts of the Church of God that Christ built belonging to the same single body?


Question #3:

The Affirmative said the following:

Matthew 28:20 is conditional. It says “…observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…”

My counterpart is guilty of ripping off the said verse from the bible since the full text of Matthew 28:20 shows the following:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

My question now would be, using the rules on standard English grammar, what’s the purpose of having a punctuation mark in between two different sentences or phrases?


Question #4:

The Affirmative also posted the following:

Thus, the Catholic Church is the Babylon, the Prostitute. The Catholic Church is the apostate church.

My question now would be, can the Affirmative please declare it as a statement of fact that he undoubtedly believes that the Catholic Church is indeed the First Century Church? For if not, then it means that the Affirmative doesn’t believe his own arguments.


Question #5:

The Affirmative’s Second Constructive effectively claims that the Catholic Church was indeed the Church of the First Century.

My question now would be, assuming without accepting that the Catholic Church under the Pope, which is of course the Roman Catholic Church, apostatized, how then do we consider the Orthodox Catholics who also came from the same First Century Church? I am assuming that the Orthodox Church doesn’t belong to the Affirmative’s apostatized church claim since the Orthodox didn’t submit itself under the Pope’s authority.

[Ischaramoochie]

Reminder to the affirmative that the deadline for replying is 36 hours from now.

[Menorrah]

Question #1:
My question now would be, what does the word “kepha” mean in Ancient Aramaic?

In Pilch’s Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 94, it mentioned that word play or pun was an important aspect of Aramaic speaking culture. It cited Matthew 16:18 as one of the examples. Funny it may seem, the book mentioned Peter’s nickname in Aramaic as Kepha and translated it in English as “Rocky”. I remember the boxer’s movie whenever I heard this name.

Kepha, as most people who studied the biblical languages, means “stone”. And those who really studied the Aramaic language deeply, they will discover that there is an Aramaic word for bedrock or strong rock: shu’a. Although the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, it was translated to Greek nevertheless. The difference was not lost in translation; thus, the words “Petros” and “Petra” were applied.

It is intuitive to use Aramaic to solve this word-play problem since Jesus spoke Aramaic. However, in Cargounis’ “Peter and the Rock”, Chapter 3 discusses the difficulty of solving the word-play between Petros and Petra using Aramaic evidences. It said the evidences “…show(s) fluidity in its semantic field over a sufficiently long period of time, tending in the latter part of that period to assume the meaning of stone” (referring to Kepha). It also said “it must be admitted that the Aramaic evidence is ambiguous and it can no way solve the problem at hand”.

Thus, the negative’s plan to use Aramaic to counter my argument already failed.

What’s the best evidence so far? In the same book, Chapter 4, this was stated after gathering all data from different Syriac manuscripts: “These facts support the conclusion reach earlier that Kepha means “stone” rather than “rock” and it corresponds to “Petros”. Also, “in the case of Palestinian version,…Kepha has a sense of Stone rather than Rock.”

In English, these two words are used interchangeably and some people can’t even distinguish the difference. In common knowledge, a stone is small, hardened material while rocks are big boulder or large stone. It’s the same with Petros (small stone) and Petra (Rock). It’s the same with Kepha (stone) and Shu’a (Rock).

Question #2:
“It will come about in all the land,” Declares the LORD, “That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it.”
My question now is, were all the three parts of the Church of God that Christ built belonging to the same single body?

All three parts, namely the first century Church of Christ – Jews (first part) and Gentiles (second part), and the Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) today (third part) are all part of one same body in different periods of time. Thus, the two parts that were cut-off and perished were the first century Christians. It is important to note the word “cut-off” denotes discontinuation in terms of time as being cut-off from the third.

For this debate, my proposition is about the 2/3rd, the first century church, was completely apostatized. The verse said they were cut-off and perished. They were the Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24). In Donaldson’s “Paul and the gentiles”, p.8, it said “…the [first century] church comprised of the elect of both Jews and Gentiles.”
Now, people are saying all non-Jews were Gentiles. That’s not exactly right. The Gentiles, as officially defined in Scaevola’s Roman Constitution, with reference to the time, were those who were born of the same name (family), born of freemen, none of ancestors had been slave, and no capitis dimunitio. In ancient Roman interpretation, these people belong to subdivisions of three tribes. (Smiths, “Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities”, p. 449).

Thus, it doesn’t include people of modern times for our blood has been mixed already with slaves and freemen and we don’t particularly came from the Gentes of three tribes.


Question #3:
Matthew 28:20 is conditional. It says “…observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…”
My counterpart is guilty of ripping off the said verse from the bible since the full text of Matthew 28:20 shows the following:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
My question now would be, using the rules on standard English grammar, what’s the purpose of having a punctuation mark in between two different sentences or phrases?

You used Douay-Rheims version in this question. Unfortunately for you Totnak, the punctuation used here is COLON. Colon is used to introduce a further explanation or a list. In the verse quoted, it is to introduce further explanation. Therefore, the two sentences are related to each other and thus, the second sentence is an explanation of the first. In direct explanation, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Jesus have commanded them is very important to make the promise of Jesus staying with them even to the consummation of the world happen.

Thanks for asking a question using the version with the right punctuation.

http://www.gcsu.edu/writingcenter/colonrules.htm


Question #4:
Thus, the Catholic Church is the Babylon, the Prostitute. The Catholic Church is the apostate church.
My question now would be, can the Affirmative please declare it as a statement of fact that he undoubtedly believes that the Catholic Church is indeed the First Century Church? For if not, then it means that the Affirmative doesn’t believe his own arguments.

I already stated it in my second affirmative. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is indeed the First Century Church in terms of doctrinal comparison. I, however, believe that the Catholic Church was at first the Church of Christ. Take note of the words “at first”, it signifies that it was but not anymore. In the sentence “The prostitute was at first a virgin”. It means the prostitute was a virgin but not anymore.

You can also substitute the words “at first” with the words “in the beginning” and therefore, historically I believe that the Catholic Church has a link (historically) to the first century church. However, the link was broken because of doctrinal inconsistencies such as the Platonic Trinity which wasn’t taught by the first century church.
What does a Catholic authority say about it? In Religion: Doctrine and Practice, by Rev. Francis Cassily, pp. 442-443 and p. 444

“5. Did Jesus Christ establish a Church? Yes, from all history, both secular and profane, as well as from the bible considered as a human document, we learn that Jesus Christ established a Church, which from the earliest times has been called after him the Christian Church or the Church of Christ… This Church, founded and organized by Jesus Christ and preached by the apostles, is the Church of Christ,… It is the only true Church and the one which God orders all men to join. ”

The apostate church changed the name. As a matter of fact, even up to 1870, they were arguing about the name. In Discourses on the Apsotle’s Creed, Rev. Clement Crock, p. 191

“In 1870, at the Vatican Council, the name ‘Roman Catholic Church’ was proposed, but it was rejected. The bishops assembled unanimously decided upon this official name: ‘The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church’”

I believe in my argument. You are just having a hard time understanding it.


Question #5:
My question now would be, assuming without accepting that the Catholic Church under the Pope, which is of course the Roman Catholic Church, apostatized, how then do we consider the Orthodox Catholics who also came from the same First Century Church? I am assuming that the Orthodox Church doesn’t belong to the Affirmative’s apostatized church claim since the Orthodox didn’t submit itself under the Pope’s authority.

Your assumption is wrong. Even during my first affirmative constructive, I already introduced the “Greek Spirits” as a factor of apostasy. In your cross-examination, I gave the Platonic Trinity as an example of “Greek Spirits”. Here’s part of my answer in your Q4 during the 1st cross-examination:

One of the Hellenistic or Greek Spirit philosophes is the Trinity. Thus, “Most defenders and opposers of this doctrine in modern times agree in maintaining that the doctrine of the Trinity is delivered and inculcated in the writings of Plato” (ibid pp. 167). The doctrine of the Trinity is a proof that Greek Spirits won over the doctrine and history attest that it won over the church as well. Most churches today, including the Eastern and Roman Catholic Churches espouse this Platonic Trinity.

In fourth century, more than 700 years before the schism, both Eastern and Western Catholic Church prohibit their clergy to marry [Council of Elvira (305 A.D.) and Council of Carthage (390 A.D.)]. Also, both Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic Churches practice prohibition of eating meat on certain days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern...Church#Fasting).

The Schism between East and West happened in 1054 A.D. This is more than 700 years since the Council of Nicaea. Before then, the Pope’s authority was being enforced in the West and being accessed in the East. Before the Schism, they try to settle doctrinal issues together and they meet together. The Pope was the head of the council of Bishops of the Eastern and Western Catholics.

Let me quote these from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East.”

“The authoritative acts of the popes, inasmuch as they are the exercise of their Apostolical power, are styled acts of the Holy or Apostolic See.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm

[Ateo]

Let me stop the clock while the mods address the objections raised by Totnak on Menorrah's latest post. Totnak asked for a ruling on issues of directness and relevance of some items. Details will be shown later when we rule on these objections.

[Menorrah]

I will abide by any decision of our Moderators.

Let the truth be not suppressed.

[Ateo]

This mod will rule on the objections raised by Totnak on Menorrah's Item 11. Affirmative Replies.

Let me quote each objection (in italics) and rule on it (bold).

WORD COUNT

Totnak pointed out that word count total based on www.wordcounttool.com is 1,631 words while MS-Word had it at 1,606. Both showing clear violations of the word limit which is 1,600 words.

I claim the prerogative of indicating my preferred counter -- MS Word 2007. Using it, the count is 1,609, thus in excess of the limit. This is the second violation by Menorrah of this rule; and, while the excess is a mere 9 words, it is still a violation of one indicator that can be objectively measured. It does not bother me personally, but there is a complaint so I need to point it out.


DIRECTNESS

Totnak objected that Menorrah didn't answer questions #2 and #4 directly as required by the rules.

RULINGS

A2. I rule that the answer given by Menorrah is direct enough, thus is acceptable. I consider the first sentence of Menorrah's answer as a direct answer to the question.

A4. I rule that this question was not answered directly. I have difficulty understanding if Menorrah is saying "yes" or "no" to Totnak's question. Using qualifications like "in terms of doctrinal comparison" and "at first" did not help in the clarity but instead muddled it. While I understand Menorrah's need to assert quickly that the Catholic Church is a "prostitute", there is time for that later in the post. The first part should first clearly state a "yes" or a "no". Also, Menorrah should use the term "First Century Church" when he answers, not "Church of Christ", because the question was about the earlier phrase not about the latter. He may any terms later in the post, but the first part should be clear.

I therefore rule that Menorrah will have to re-post his A4 -- answer to question 4.


RELEVANCE

Totnak objected to Menorrah's answers to some of the questions. Let me quote him directly (italicized below):

the Affirmative violated Rule #2 by raising something that is not a part of his 2nd Affirmative Constructive. They are as follows:

On Question #1, the Affirmative clearly came up with a different argument than what was raised in his immediate constructive preceding the cross when he talked about the wordplay dilemma on the use of Petros, Petra and Kephas.

On Question #2, the Affirmative raised the issue about the Jews and Gentiles which wasn't a part of his immediate constructive preceding the cross.

On Question # 5, the Affirmative used an argument that is entirely irrelevant to the question on hand. By appealing to the arguments of his first constructive, the Affirmative is directly contradicting his second constructive in which he undeniably pointed to the apostatized Supreme Leader of the Church that led to the Apostasy of the 1st Century Church

RULING

Now on the issue, I rule that all of Menorrah's answers objected to by Totnak shall be accepted, without me commenting on the relevance/irrelevance of those answers.

That ruling above may sound confusing so let me explain how I am using the Relevance Rule. This rule is primarily used to test the questions, not the answers. The questions should be relevant to the preceding constructive as we need focused questions and not out-of-nowhere or whimsy questions.

But the answers are typically not tested for relevance, but for directness. The common problem with answers is that they are not direct enough when facing a difficult question. So moderators should watch for directness. But Relevance is not a problem that should be ruled by the Moderator. The burden of proving irrelevance should remain with the opposing debater.

In this particular case, if Menorrah's answers are indeed irrelevant and contradictory to his constructed position, then that should weaken his position and it is something that Totnak should attack on during his rebuttal. It is important to remember that I am not saying that Menorrah's answer is RELEVANT or NOT. It is a burden that Totnak should have in his rebuttal.

Therefore, I reserve my own view on the relevance of Menorrah's answers as part of the judging process at the end.

SUMMARY

To summarize, Menorrah needs to post an acceptable A4, or answer to question 4. He is given 320 words and 5-day deadline from the time of this post.

[Ischaramoochie]

i concur with and support Ateo's decision.

[Menorrah]

Answer to question number 4: No. The Catholic Church IS NOT the first century church. Take note of the linking verb in present tense. My position is clear: The Catholic Church is the apostatized church. Thus, in form and doctrines, the Catholic Church is not the first century church. At first it WAS, but after apostasy, it IS not anymore.

Please be mindful of the tenses used because it is important in this debate.

[Ateo]

Menorrah's answer above is clearer and is acceptable under the directness rule of this debate.

Let me quote what I think is the very heart of the answer: "At first it WAS [a First-Century Church], but after apostasy, it IS not anymore."

To proceed, Totnak has 5 days from this post to make his next post.

[Totnak]

The “Total Apostasy” teaching was first advanced by the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Based on their doctrine, the First Century Church that was established by Jesus suffered a “total apostasy”. Though nobody was able to pinpoint to an exact date on when this supposed to be damning event happened, they do insist that it must have happened.

This teaching was also adopted by the INC when it was founded in 1914. Nobody could explain the similarity of their “total apostasy” doctrine with that of the LDS but they share the exact same pitfalls. That it’s not important when it exactly happened BUT that it definitely happened thus the need for the restoration of the apostatized Church.


The “Exact Date” Argument

Apologists from both the LDS and the INC always brush of the question about the “exact date” of the “total apostasy”. For them, it’s immaterial and insignificant. But is this accurate?

All the significant events in the history of the Church had been well-documented, not just by Christians but by non-Christian historians alike. One perfect example was the account of Cornelius Tacitus’ “Nero's Persecution of the Christians” and Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History”. It’s absurd to accept something as serious as the allegations of a Total Apostasy if no one could attest to the veracity of the date when each and every member of the Church renounced its faith.

Makes sense, right? Apparently not to them.

Going back to the arguments I raised in my first constructive, for The Church to totally apostatized, each and every member should renounce his/her faith. It’s preposterous to say that there are no written recordings of such given that every important edict in the history of the Catholic Church has been recorded.

If the writings doesn't have it, be it theological or historical, it means it didn’t happen. Plain and simple.


The Rock and Stone dilemma

The Affirmative, in his second constructive and succeeding answer to the Q&A pointed out the following:

Kepha, as most people who studied the biblical languages, means “stone”. And those who really studied the Aramaic language deeply, they will discover that there is an Aramaic word for bedrock or strong rock: shu’a.

Please allow me to point out that the Affirmative had the above meaning wrong. Kefa in ancient Aramaic, take note, in Ancient Aramaic and not any other Aramaic versions, means “rock” while on the other hand, a pebble or little stone is called “evna”.

Jesus didn’t use “Evna” to refer to Peter. Same as with Paul and John who both referred to Peter as “Cephas”. This basically strengthens the argument that Jesus meant Peter to be a Rock and not as a pebble or a little stone as what most anti-Petrine arguments would like us to believe.

As to why Kefa was used instead of Shu’a, I believe that plain grammatical rule would dictate that there’s no compelling reason for Jesus to use another word for it. For one, Jesus didn’t say “and on this bed rock (shu’a) I will built my church….”, right?


The Bible Goes Against a Complete Apostasy

In my first constructive, I’ve laid out verses from the NT that unarguably shows us the “Jesus Guarantee” that was given to His Church. Unfortunately, the Affirmative tried to refute the said guarantees by assuming that it came with “imaginary” pre-conditions. Conditions that according to him, if not met, would forfeit the said guarantees.

What I find amusing with the Affirmative’s argument was that the condition to which he is pointing seems lost in the equation. See, the guarantee was delivered in Matthew 16:18 while the condition the Affirmative is insisting could be found 4 chapters after! How could have they possibly linked those two verses separated by 4 chapters while ignoring some of the other verses like “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”?

What makes that “condition” argument more absurd was that they picked up a verse four chapters away while ignoring the verse “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” which is just five verses away?

Besides, isn’t it that Gamaliel, a high priest said the following when the apostles were being persecuted?

"And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him." (Acts 5:28-29)

You see my friend, if it be of God, NO ONE can overthrow it. This is probably the most compelling verse that would affirm the guarantee of Jesus that “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”


The Orthodox Equation

I believe that everyone knows that the Catholic Church is divided into two: EAST and WEST.

The EAST which is also known as the Catholic Orthodox Church doesn’t submit into the Petrine Supremacy doctrine that the WEST or the Roman Catholic Church adheres to, right? Given this obvious fact, I believe that there’s no compelling need to further show any evidences that the Affirmative’s argument in his second constructive is entirely wrong.

The Affirmative preaches that the apostatized church was led by the “man of lawlessness” mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-11 to whom he alluded to as being the Pope. He even expounded on it by saying these

“an act of one man becomes an act of the church. The apostasy of one man becomes the apostasy of the church.”

What the Affirmative readily ignored was the fact that not everyone in the Catholic Church, namely the EAST, submits to the Pope. Assuming now without accepting that the Pope was indeed the man of lawlessness that would lead the Church to a complete apostasy, then where will you put the EASTERN Church then?

The Affirmative admitted under interpellation that the “Catholic Church WAS the First Century Church”. If the Catholic Church was the First Century Church and assuming without accepting that the Roman Catholic faction indeed apostatized, then it would leave us with the ORTHODOX Church as the remnants of the First Century Church! This effectively negates the proposition since the alleged prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-11 only talks about the Church who fell away because of the man of lawlessness.

I don’t think it can be any clearer than that.


One Body, One Church

The Affirmative has admitted under cross that the Church indeed has one body. And the bible fully supports this.

“And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:” Colossians 1:18

Jesus heads the body which is the Church. Will this church ever be destroyed or torn? Let’s ask the bible.

“And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:14

See, the Bible itself belies all arguments that the Church would be completely destroyed and that it would need restoration. Yes, as I’ve said, the Church will experience the great falling away or a great apostasy BUT it won’t ever experience a total and complete apostasy.

“But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.” Daniel 2:44

The One Body of Church that is headed by Christ won’t ever be destroyed. The prophet Daniel prophesied it and Jesus guaranteed it. What else are you looking for?

The Affirmative’s claim that the Church had three parts and that the first and second parts were cut off while the third part came to existence 2000 years later is completely wrong.

You see, if we talk about the same body, then all of its parts should exist at the same time. You can’t have a body without a head, a hand, a leg, etc. By claiming that the third part of the same body only came to being 2000 years after, the Affirmative is accusing God’s church of being imperfect with missing parts. Unfortunately, the Bible says otherwise.

“For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” Romans 12:4-5

See my friends, Christ’s body cannot be separated from each other. Everyone may not have the same office BUT everyone is a member of one another. This means that they cannot be separated from each other NO MATTER WHAT.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:28-29

What was that promise?

“And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed.” Genesis 12:2

God made that promise to Abraham and Jesus gave the same promise to His Church.

Amen and God bless!

[Menorrah]

I would like to ask our dear Moderators if I feel that my opponent's second negative constructive is extremely weak and does not really address the opposition to the topic, can I forgo of the cross-examination and proceed directly to closing?

Thank you and God bless.

[Ateo]

I would like to ask our dear Moderators if I feel that my opponent's second negative constructive is extremely weak and does not really address the opposition to the topic, can I forgo of the cross-examination and proceed directly to closing?

Thank you and God bless.

@Menorrah,

Re your question, no, you could not forgo the customary cross-exam. The format/agenda is part of the rules. It has to be followed. This part of the debate gives Totnak "air-time" -- you have 500 words for questions but he will have 1,600 words for answers -- thus it would disadvantage him if we cut short this part. If you really don't have any questions, tell him so in your post #13; but we will still give him the full 1,600 words to use for his arguments.

WARNING

There is also another point. Your most recent post stated, "my opponent's second negative constructive is extremely weak..." You criticized your opponent's argument in a post that is not part of the agenda (format). You should have PMed it to me if you wanted me to answer your question. The valid way to criticize your opponent's argument is during a normal post. Let this be a gentle warning.

[Menorrah]

Since I was not allowed to proceed directly to closing, I will ask five questions and interpolate some verses used:


1. On "The Jesus Christ guarantee", was the guarantee for the 100% members of the church or was the guarantee for just a portion/part of the church?


2. You said "I believe that everyone knows that the Catholic Church is divided into two: EAST and WEST.", according to your position in this debate, is the Eastern Orthodox Church part of Christ's body? Yes or No.


3. On your exact date argument, you said "All the significant events in the history of the Church had been well-documented, not just by Christians but by non-Christian historians alike.", my question: was Christ's birthday a significant event? Yes or No. If yes, does it have an exact date recorded?


4. You quoted Daniel 2:44, which said "...shall consume all these kingdoms" referring to the first four kingdoms in BABYLON'S King Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream. In the dream's interpretation, before God set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, a fourth kingdom that is a divided kingdom will arise. Verse 41: Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom;

What is this fourth kingdom that is a divided kingdom that will arise before God set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed?


5. You quoted Daniel 7:14, which was also part of the King of Babylon's Dream. Let's study its context. In Daniel's interpretation of the dream in verses 15-28, before the kingdom that shall not be destroyed was established, there will arise a fourth beast or fourth king, which is said in verse 25 "He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time."

My question: Who is the fourth beast or king who will arise before the kingdom that shall not be destroyed is established?

[Ateo]

Totnak PMed the mods to object to two questions as irrelevant. Let me quote him directly:

I have the following objections on the Affirmative's cross questions

Questions #4 and #5 are not relevant to the argument raised in my last constructive. The verse used from Daniel (2:44) was shown to prove that God promises that the kingdom he would be building will not be destroyed regardless of the other kingdoms that came before or after it. My constructive was defending the argument that "God's kingdom can't be destroyed" while the cross-questions were centering on which kingdoms will be destroyed. Two different and distinct things altogether.

Thanks!

Ruling

This is a difficult objection to rule on. On one hand the questions, in a general sense, are very relevant. Those passages of Daniel refer to a series of kings/kingdoms. The Negative is saying that there is that last kingdom that will never be destroyed (the First Century Church). But the Affirmative, in his question, is implying that it is that other kingdom, the fourth one, that was destroyed, which is the subject Church.

In that sense the questions are therefore very relevant because we need clarity between the two conflicting claims.

On other hand, the Negative's objection is understandable. He was referring only to that last kingdom that will not be destroyed. So, why was he placed unfairly in the spot to identify that other kingdom that he was not even referring to? He did not claim to know the identities of all those earlier kingdoms; all he was claiming is that that last kingdom is the subject Church.

While the issue is relevant, the Affirmative needs to make the questions fair to the Negative, perhaps by focusing on that last kingdom or perhaps asking about the fourth kingdom but not about its identity. If the Affirmative wants to assert that that fourth kingdom is the subject Church, he may do so in the Rejoinder.

Ruling

I rule that questions about these kingdoms are very relevant, BUT the Affirmative needs to fine-tune his Q4 and Q5 to make them more focused on the Negative's argument.

The Affirmative has 5 days from the time of this post to post the revised questions. He may re-post only the two questions objected to or he may re-post all five questions together so it would be easier to read.

[Menorrah]

1. On "The Jesus Christ guarantee", was the guarantee for the 100% members of the church or was the guarantee for just a portion/part of the church?

2. You said "I believe that everyone knows that the Catholic Church is divided into two: EAST and WEST.", according to your position in this debate, is the Eastern Orthodox Church part of Christ's body? Yes or No.


3. On your exact date argument, you said "All the significant events in the history of the Church had been well-documented, not just by Christians but by non-Christian historians alike.", my question: was Christ's birthday a significant event? Yes or No. If yes, does it have an exact date recorded?


4. You quoted Daniel 2:44, which said “and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms" referring to the first four kingdoms in BABYLON'S King Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream. In the dream's interpretation, before God set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, a fourth kingdom that is a divided kingdom will arise.
My question: what are those kingdoms that will be broken into pieces and be consumed by the kingdom that will never be destroyed?



5. You quoted Daniel 7:14, which was also part of the King of Babylon's Dream. Afterwards, Daniel interpreted the dream. My question: To get the context of what you quoted, what was Daniel’s interpretation of the entire dream?

[Ferdinand]

Oppps wrong thread again.

[Totnak]

Q1: The Affirmative’s question reveals something that confirms my suspicion. And that is the fact that up until this point, my counterpart still doesn’t have the right understanding of the arguments that I have already raised on my previous constructive.

Thus, for the benefit of my counterpart on the other side of this discussion, I’ll try to make my answer as simple as possible.

The Church that was built by Christ came with the guarantee that it can’t be overcome by the gates of hell, right? This same Church would also have the Holy Spirit dwelling in it forever. I guess those points have already been established based on the biblical passages that were presented during the past parts of this discussion.

But does that mean that the said promise would automatically be passed on to all the members of The Church? Only those who lack a better understanding would say yes.

You see, The Church isn’t your one-stop guarantee to salvation. But rather, The Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would teach the truth about salvation and how to attain it.

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

The Church is the institution that would guide its members. Just like the way an ordinary School is responsible for teaching its students.

Saying that the guarantee to The Church should apply to all of it members is not only erroneous, but it’s also illogical. The same way that the budget allocation guaranteed by the National Government to each school isn’t shared with each individual students.

The guarantee was given to The Church regardless of its members. We should remember that being a part of The Church is not a guarantee to salvation. The Church would teach us the way to salvation but to obtain it, we need to work up to the very end for our salvation.

“Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.“ Philippians 2:12

The short answer to the question as to whether the guarantee is applicable to all the members of the church or just a portion of it would be NEITHER. The guarantee was given to The Church as an institution, as the Body of Christ here on earth.

Remember that many would be called to The Church but eventually, only a few would be chosen.

“So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen. “ Matthew 20:16


Q2: Yes, based on the teachings of Catholicism, the EASTERN ORTHODOX is part of the same body of Christ since it shares the same Apostolic succession and order with the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Church has a living link with history that goes back to Roman times—and then, through Judaism, back to the beginning of human history.

Q3: Christ's birth date is a significant event in the whole of Christianity. The problem with your question is that, it doesn't have any relevance to my argument which is as follows:

"All the significant events in the history of the Church had been well-documented, not just by Christians but by non-Christian historians alike."

Emphasis on the phrase "the history of the Church". Christ's birth is a significant event to the whole of Christendom. On the other hand, the History of the Church doesn't necessarily need to "record the exact date" of Christ's birth since it didn't fall into the category of events that happened AFTER THE CHURCH was established and built. See where your question failed?

The history of the Church refers to everything that happened AFTER THE FOUNDING DATE of the CHURCH which was built by Christ and not anything that happened before it. For it's preposterous to record those events that happened before its existence.

So, to answer your question, The Church consider Christ’s birthday as a significant event FOR ALL CHRISTIANS but there’s no compelling reason to record the exact date of it. What is important is that The Church was established by Christ as the pillar and ground of truth to which the gates of Hades cannot prevail until the end of times.


Q4: According to Robert J.M. Gurney & John H. Walton, the four kingdoms were as follows:

First -- Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar (605-562)
Second -- Median Empire (562-550)
Third -- Persian Empire (550 - July 331)
Fourth -- Greek Empire (July 331 - 27 BC)

However, a different view was held by Gleason L. Archer who had the following:

First -- Babylon (605-539)
Second -- Medo-Persia (539 - 331)
Third -- Greek Empire (July 331 - 27 BC)
Fourth -- Roman Empire (27 BC and beyond)

FF Bruce also refers to the Fourth kingdom as the Pagan Roman Empire. See the following comments from different religious scholars.

DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY OF RUSSELL EARL KELLY, PHD wrote Pagan ROME being the kingdom in Dan 2:41-43 10 kingdoms

David Berg of Family International wrote "we know that this fourth kingdom was Rome. Rome was the tough, iron-fisted kingdom which clamped down with iron military rule over the entire known World in the days before Christ. It so "subdued all things" that for nearly 100 years there were no major wars, no one even being able to muster a force against the Roman rule."

According to FF Bruce NIV Commentary, Alexander the Great is the “third kingdom and its descendants eventually giving way to the fourth, Rome. This is the view traditionally held in the Christian Church. Arguing that all Daniel's prophesies have the same references, gives the third kingdom to Persia and the fourth to Alexander or the third d to Alexander and the fourth to his successor. (NIV Commentary F F Bruce page 856)


Q5: The interpretation of the whole dream of the then king Nebuchadnezzar is not of any significance or importance to the argument that I’ve built using the said verse. I’ll quote the argument I used.

Jesus heads the body which is the Church. Will this church ever be destroyed or torn? Let’s ask the bible.

“And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:14

See, the Bible itself belies all arguments that the Church would be completely destroyed and that it would need restoration. Yes, as I’ve said, the Church will experience the great falling away or a great apostasy BUT it won’t ever experience a total and complete apostasy.

You see, the argument was about God as a keeper of His covenant with His people. And by reading through Daniel 7:14, we could clearly see that Daniel prophesied about a Kingdom that will be set up by God which shall never be destroyed.

Is it in harmony with my argument? Yes, it is indeed.

Before I get accused of not answering the question directly, my answer would be this.

The interpretation of Daniel 7:14 can be found on Daniel 7:27 that wrote

And that the kingdom, and power, and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, may be given to the people of the saints of the most High: whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all kings shall serve him, and shall obey him.

I am of the impression that my Affirmative counterpart would try and raise the argument about the Four Beasts that symbolizes four kingdoms with the fourth kingdom having ten horns. However, this strategy is a bad one to employ since my argument is not anywhere near these prophecies BUT it centers around the characteristics and traits of God’s kingdom.

Powerful, can never be destroyed and lasting.

God bless!