The Instigator
amigodana
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Is the catholic church fullfilling Daniel 7:25 by changing Times and laws?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,001 times Debate No: 66536
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

amigodana

Pro

I will take the position that the catholic church is in fact changing times and laws and therefore fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 and speaking great words against the most high.

Daniel 7:25 "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

Since the scriptures teach that God does not change;

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

You must prove that the catholic church is not changing the times and laws of God.

Even Jesus says;

Matthew 5:17 "" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 5:19 "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

We will stay within the KJV bible!
This debate is for catholics only.

You can start anytime.
1Credo

Con

1. Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion.

2. Burden of Proof

My opponent has undertaken the burden of proof in this debate and must show that the resolution (that the Catholic Church is the specific fulfillment of the prophecy made in Daniel 7:25) is true in order to win.

3. Rebuttal

My opponent opens his argument by stating "Since the scriptures teach that God does not change... You must prove that the Catholic Church is not changing the times and laws of God." This is incorrect. I agree with the proposition that God does not change. However, this does absolutely nothing to show that the laws of God cannot change. To the contrary, Jesus Himself changes the laws of God in Matthew 5:17, when He states "I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." In order to be the fulfillment of the law, Jesus alters the interpretation of the law. Take, for example, the passage from St. Mark's gospel where Jesus explicitly changes the traditional teaching on the Sabbath:

"And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."

4. Additional Notes

As I showed in my rebuttal, the changing of interpretation of laws by the Catholic Church presents no issue, as Jesus Himself did the very same thing during His ministry. I would like to make an additional point with regard to the changing of God's laws. It seems to me that if any church is guilty of changing God's laws (for the worse), it certainly would not be the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is universally regarded as the traditional Christian church, with unchanged doctrines that date back to Jesus' time. The Protestant churches, however, do not have a comparable record of maintaining rigid doctrine throughout time. There are several of God's laws which were practiced by the early (Catholic) Church set up by Jesus before His heavenly ascension that Protestants have changed over time:
-Church structure: Hierarchical leadership was present in the Jewish Church of Jesus' era as well as the early (Catholic) Church that arose from His ministry. This hierarchical structure has been maintained by the Catholic Church through the Pope, bishops, etc., but has been completely done away with by Protestant churches.
-The Bible: Protestants have altered the Word of God itself. The original Bible, compiled at the Council of Nicea by the Catholic Church, contained 73 books. Each of these 73 books have been maintained by the Catholic Church throughout time. The Protestant churches, however, have completely done away with 6 of these books.
-The Eucharist: Aside from salvation, the Eucharist is perhaps the most important doctrine taught by Jesus. The Catholic Church maintains the doctrine of the Eucharist, while the Protestant churches have reduced this doctrine to mere symbolism.
-Sola Scriptura: The Bible is explicitly clear that the (Catholic) Church is to be the pillar of truth by which the Bible can be interpreted. This doctrine has been maintained throughout time by the Catholic Church, but has been done away with by the Protestant churches, who reject the Church and instead affirm the problematic concept of sola scriptura.

5. Summary

I have shown that the changing of interpretation of law is not an issue (as Jesus Himself did this). Furthermore, I have shown that even if this were an issue, it is the Protestant churches, not the Catholic Church, who are most guilty. In order to win this debate, my opponent must (1) show that changing interpretation of law is against God's will, (2) reconcile (1) with Jesus' changing of interpretation of law, and (3) show that it is solely the Catholic Church that is guilty of this.

Sources:
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://oce.catholic.com...
http://www.vatican.va...
http://www.catholicculture.org...
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org...
Debate Round No. 1
amigodana

Pro

Part 2) Yes, I have the burden of proof.

Part 3) You actually misquoted the scripture, and I hope you did not do that to change Gods intended meaning, even though it appears that you have by your own explanation.

Quote "Matthew 5:17, when He states "I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

That is not what he stated and therefore nullifies your explanation of this verse (I noticed that you removed the part that says "Think not that"at the beginning of the verse);

Matthew 5:17 "" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Matthew 5:19 "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

He did not come to destroy the law! Not ONE jot or Tittle will pass from the law!
Lets not change Gods word in order to get people to believe something other than the truth, OK!

Part 4) The sabbath - changing of times;
Even the catholic church recognizes that there is NO authority to change the day of sabbath. They just wanted it to change, that is all.

"Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman Catholic Church protests that, indeed, it is not. The Roman Catholic Church itself without any Scriptural authority from God transferred Christian worship from the Biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday."

Source; Rome"s Challenge"Why do Protestants Keep Sunday?
http://ebookbrowsee.net...

"Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

Source; James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 edition), p. 72-73 (16th Edition, p 111; 88th Edition, p. 89).

"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."

Source; Catholic Virginian, October 3, 1947, p. 9, article "To Tell You the Truth."

Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

Source; Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert"s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.

"Sunday is our mark of authority" the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
Source; Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1, 1923

So as we can see from their own words that they, without the authority of God's Word, have indeed changed the day of sabbath (changing times) with No authority to do so. So I find this following statement of theirs quite interesting, don't you?

"The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ. The Pope has authority and has often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ"
Source; Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop

Part 5) Changing laws

Source; A catholic catechism
http://www.christusrex.org...

The second commandment in the scriptures has been changed in the catechism, which is quite ironic considering that it goes against what they do.

Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"
Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

So by the burden of proof, you can clearly see that they indeed have changed the laws and times by their own words, and they admit that they do not have any biblical authority to do so.

I will be awaiting my opponents response or denial.
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

1. Quoting Error

My apologies for the error in my scripture quote. The correct verse reads "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

My opponent's response read: "Lets not change Gods word in order to get people to believe something other than the truth, OK!"

I don't think there's any reason to accuse me of trying to change God's word; it was a simple mistake. Besides, in my last argument I repeatedly stated that it was the fulfillment of the law (as the verse says) that Jesus represented. Jesus did not destroy the law, he changed (fulfilled) it.

2. The Sabbath

I haven't claimed that the Sabbath is meant to be Sunday, so I'm unsure as to why my opponent has chosen to dedicate the heavy majority of his argument to this point. I'm happy to agree with my opponent that the Jews celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday. This is irrelevant. My statement was that prior to Jesus, the law stated that no work could be done on the Sabbath day. Jesus changed (fulfilled) this law, not by changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday (as my opponent is set on arguing against), but by working. Jesus Himself disobeyed the Jewish law on the Sabbath by performing miracles on the Sabbath. I think my opponent will have a very difficult time in trying to argue that Jesus did not change the Sabbath. Again, I am not saying that Jesus changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. I am saying that Jesus changed the Sabbath so that work could be done, which previously would have been contrary to Jewish law on the Sabbath.

My opponent seems to be troubled (please correct me if I'm wrong) by the fact that Catholics celebrate Mass on Sundays. I think this is a bit strange, as I've never heard of any Protestant church that doesn't hold a single service on Sunday morning or evening. It seems to me that if it truly is wrong to hold church services on Sundays as opposed to Saturdays (which I don't for a second think it is), then Protestants are just as much as fault as Catholics are.

3. Graven Images

My opponent takes issue with the fact that Catholics celebrate Christianity through images (statues, pictures, etc.) Once again, it seems to me that even if this is truly wrong (again, I don't for a second think that it is) then Protestants are just much at fault as Catholics are. To give an example, at every single Protestant (and Catholic) church that I have passed by during this holiday season, I notice that nativity scenes are always present. I take no issue with this (I myself have a nativity scene). However, on Pro's view, nativity scenes are a sin (these types of statues go against Jewish law). Furthermore, nearly every Christian I know (Protestant and Catholic) owns some sort of crucifix (whether it be a cross necklace, a wall crucifix, etc.) Are these graven images? I see no problem with nativity scenes, pictures of Christ, or crosses. Yet my opponent asserts that these are all sinful. Even if my opponent were able to show that these are sinful, he would still have all of his work ahead of him, for he must shoulder the burden of proof in showing that it is solely the Catholic Church which is changing Jewish law. It seems to be that this is unreasonable.

4. Protestant Changes

My opponent had no response to the changes I brought up that have been made by Protestant churches. These changes include the demolition of church hierarchy, the removal of several books from the Bible, the abandonment of the central doctrine of the Eucharist, and the assertion of sola scriptura. Given all these changes, it seems to me that it is far more likely that Daniel 7:25 refers to a Protestant church than towards the Catholic Church, which has maintained sound doctrine for 2,000 years.

5. Summary

In the beginning of the debate, my opponent took the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof. As such, it is and will continue to be his responsibility (if he wants to win this debate) to show that the Catholic Church is the only church which has changed Jewish law. Thus far, my opponent has attempted to argue that the Catholic Church has changed the Sabbath (from Saturday to Sunday) and that the Catholic Church uses graven images (statues, pictures of Jesus, crosses, etc.) My opponent must first show that these changes to Jewish law are contrary to the teachings of Jesus. He must then show that the Catholic Church is the only Church who has made these changes.

In my response, I showed that Jesus Himself changed the Sabbath by allowing work. Furthermore, I showed that Protestants and Catholics both hold church services on Sundays, so that any accusation my opponent makes against Catholicism for Sunday Mass must also be made towards any Protestant church who holds any type of service on Sundays. I also showed that Protestants and Catholics both have changed the Jewish law on graven images. Catholics and Protestants alike set up nativity scenes, wear cross necklaces, etc.

So, to reiterate my opponent's responsibilities, he must (1) show that worshipping on Sunday, setting up nativity scenes, and wearing cross necklaces are sinful and (2) show that there is not a single Protestant church in existence that worships on Sunday, displays a nativity scene, or promotes the wearing of cross necklaces. I wish my opponent the best of luck on the difficult endeavor.

6. Sources
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org...
http://oce.catholic.com...
http://www.vatican.va...
http://www.catholicculture.org...
Debate Round No. 2
amigodana

Pro

May I remind my opponent of the topic of this debate;

"Is the catholic church fulfilling Daniel 7:25 by changing Times and laws?"

Since it is my responsibility to shoulder the burden of proof it also falls to me to make the claims as to where the catholic church has taken a specific and sole authority of changing the times and Laws. My burden does not include the changing of all the times and laws, only that a law and a time has been changed by one system of faith, specifically the catholic faith (per the debate topic). My opponent has acknowledged that indeed I have shown where the catholic church has changed the times.

Quote;"I'm happy to agree with my opponent that the Jews celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday."

The catholic church also acknowledges that the sabbath is the third commandment:
http://biblelight.net...
http://biblelight.net...

They acknowledge that if we follow the bible that we would still be keeping holy the sabbath day.
http://biblelight.net...
http://biblelight.net...

The catholic church has specifically taken the Sole AUTHORITY of that change and that there is NO other that can claim that right. They state that they are the only true church. Despite the irrelevancy of his argument, its common sense that following someone else changes does not constitute making a change. You also must take into account that there are still some that do in fact worship on Saturday contrary to the teaching of the catholic church. Let me remind my opponent though, that digressing from the debate topic will not disprove the evidence given.

The catholic church has also clearly said that "to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. " So I would hope that my opponent, being that he is catholic, would stop denying the authority of the church and trying to show scripture to support their changing of the sabbath. He is being a very dishonest catholic by doing so.

"Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblical approved day of worship. The Roman Catholic Church protests that, indeed, it is not. The Roman Catholic Church itself without any Scriptural authority from God transferred Christian worship from the Biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday."

Source; Rome"s Challenge"Why do Protestants Keep Sunday?
http://ebookbrowsee.net...

More evidence;
http://biblelight.net...

I have achieved my burden of proof concerning this matter, however, I will give more evidence of the catholic church taking the authority of modifying divine law over all.

"The Pope is of great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws... The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth."

Adm. Rev. P.F. Lucii Ferraris ... Prompta bibliotheca canonica, juridica ...
By Lucius Ferraris
See part 30; "Papa" "Leges Divinas Modificare"
http://books.google.com...

The catholic encyclopedia States that the information contained in the previous source will "ever remain a precious mine of information".
https://books.google.com...
It is also noted as to the purpose of the original source;
https://books.google.com...

And yet again we also have the second commandment removed!
http://www.christusrex.org...

My burden of proof involves showing that the catholic church has indeed fulfilled both the changing of times and laws according to the prophecy Dan. 7:25. The catholic church themselves have so proudly acknowledged these very facts. The catholic church has proudly stated that they and they alone are responsible for these changes since they are the only true church.

The ball is now in my opponents court to show that either the catholic church has lied, or that there is another religious system or faith that is equal to the authority of the catholic faith and that they have made any changes equal too or greater. Does he have any sources or documentation stating that they have the authority and power to change God's law and times.

If the catholic church is the only true church of God then there is no other system or faith to make changes to the times and laws of God, its that simple!

Is my opponent acknowledging and basing his argument on the premise that there is another church's authority equal to the catholic church?
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

1. Debate Topic

The topic of this debate is whether or not it is the Catholic Church (if any) that is fulfilling the prophecy made in Daniel 7:25 by changing times and laws. My opponent states that with the burden of proof, it is his responsibility to show "where the Catholic Church has taken a specific and sole authority of changing the times and laws". My opponent then went on to say that he was not responsible for showing the changing of all times and laws (which I agree with) but that he was responsible for showing that at least one time/law has been changed.

What my opponent does not seem to understand is that in order to show that it is the Catholic Church specifically that is fulfilling Daniel 7:25, he must show that the Catholic Church is the only church which has changed at least one time/law (this is after he has shown that the change is sinful, which he has thus far failed to do).

My opponent's goal in this debate is to show that the Catholic Church is in the wrong because it is the church spoken of in Daniel 7:25. Again, in order to do this, he cannot simply show that the Catholic Church has changed a time/law. He must (1) show that the Catholic Church is the only church to have ever changed a time/law and (2) show that this change is against God's will.

2. Protestant Changes

So, is the Catholic Church the only church to have ever changed a time/law? Certainly not. In the beginning of the debate, I listed four large-scale and commonly recognized Protestant changes that have been made. These changes include the demolition of church hierarchy, the removal of several books from the Bible, the abandonment of the central doctrine of the Eucharist, and the assertion of sola scriptura. In order to shoulder his burden of proof, my opponent must show that there is not a single Protestant church who has made any of these changes. Unless he is able to do that, then we can conclude that the Catholic Church is not the only church to have made changes to times/laws and thus it is not specifically the Catholic Church that is being referred to in Daniel 7:25.

3. Sole Authority on the Sabbath

My opponent seems to be implying that because the Catholic Church was the first church to temporally worship on Sundays, his burden of proof has been shouldered. This is palpably false. I'll use an example to illustrate the absurdity of my opponent's argument:

Let's say that a large group of people decides to steal from their local shopping mall. They go from store to store, taking what they want before moving on to the next. A man, in his home, watches this shoplifting frenzy take place on the local news station. The man thinks to himself, "What am I doing, sitting here, when I could be stealing like they are?" This man drives to the local shopping mall where the shoplifting frenzy is taking place, and upon arriving he goes into several stores, taking what he wants and moving on to the next. The man is arrested by the police for shoplifting. "But I wasn't the first one to do it!" He exclaims. "It was that large group of people who broke the law!"

Can you imagine the police officers responding, "Ah, of course you're right! We'd better set you free and only arrest the first person who committed this crime." No! Clearly, this man has broken the law. It is not a valid argument for the man to say that because he was not the first person to steal, he ought not be held accountable for the crime.

In the very same way, if my opponent considers worshipping on Sundays to be a "crime" against God, then anyone who worships on Sundays is guilty of that crime, not just the first church to temporally begin worshipping on Sundays.

If my opponent wants to indict the Catholic Church as being the sole church being referred to in Daniel 7:25, then he must show that the Catholic Church is the sole church changes God's laws. Until he is able to do this, he has failed to carry his burden of proof.

4. Graven Images

My opponent seems to have dropped his argument that the Catholic Church has gone against God's will by using "graven images", as he has failed to respond to my points on this subject.

5. Summary

So, to summarize, my opponent's responsibilities for fulfilling the burden of proof he took on with the assertion he made in the debate resolution include:
(1) Showing that the Catholic Church's changing of a particular law has been against the will of God
(2) Showing that the Catholic Church is the only church to have ever changed a law

I'm not sure how my opponent plans to show (1), but he has failed to even make an attempt thus far.
As for (2), my opponent must show that there is not a single Protestant church that has ever made a change from Old Testament law. This would include showing that Protestants have not altered church hierarchy, have not removed any books from the original Bible, have not changed the doctrine of the Eucharist, and do not affirm sola scriptura.

So far, my opponent been unable to shoulder the burden of proof in this debate for the claim that the Catholic Church is the specific church that is being referred to in Daniel 7:25. As such, we can reasonably conclude that the Catholic Church was not specifically being implied in that particular verse.

6. Sources
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org...
http://oce.catholic.com...
http://www.vatican.va...
http://www.catholicculture.org...
Debate Round No. 3
amigodana

Pro

My opponent in parts 1, 2, 3, 4, Has spent a lot of time on forming a great OPINION of things! He is providing NO documentation, sources, or for that matter any evidence whatsoever to support his claims against any other faith or religious system in their own words. Telling his own stories does not prove or support anything. So I wont digress into never land without something palpable to refute. We must remember that this debate is about facts being supported by documentation and NOT OPINION or his fairy tales.

Part 5)
Quote; "So, to summarize, my opponent's responsibilities for fulfilling the burden of proof he took on with the assertion he made in the debate resolution include:
(1) Showing that the Catholic Church's changing of a particular law has been against the will of God
(2) Showing that the Catholic Church is the only church to have ever changed a law"

I must remind my opponent once again that the rules of this debate state that "We will stay within the KJV bible"!
My opponent agreed to making the bible the final authority and not the catholic church.
Therefore the king James Bible is in fact the final authority for this debate and not the interpretations of the bible according to the catholic church.

So, according to my opponents part (1) "Showing that the Catholic Church's changing of a particular law has been against the will of God"
I have shown in their own documentation that IF they were to follow the bible (which is the final authority for this debate) then we would be worshiping on Saturday and not Sunday. They (the catholic church) has agreed that they are going against the bible (having NO Scriptural authority) which both me and my opponent have made to be the final authority in this debate. Therefore I have indeed fulfilled this part of my burden of proof. And I will direct you to the documentation and sources posted in previous posts as well as the scriptures at the end of this post.

And "(2) Showing that the Catholic Church is the only church to have ever changed a law"
And again, we must remember that the requirement to fulfilling Dan 7:25 includes both Laws and Times.

So yet again, according to their documentation they stated that they are the only ones responsible for the changes in BOTH Laws and Times. They are pretty proud of the fact that NO ONE else can make that claim, they have built the proof of their authority on those changes. See documentation and sources in previous posts.

I see that my opponent is again trying to digress into a side issue about the why's and what-fore's, concerning the change to the second commandment, but let me point out that the catholic church also had to change the tenth commandment to keep the appearance of ten commandments. They changed the third commandment by saying you don't have to follow it as previously shown in the documents. But we must remember that have agreed to the KJV bible as the final authority and not the catholic church's interpretations. Changing the law is still simply changing the law. And that is what this debate is about.

This is also WHY I gave this verse at the beginning of this debate;

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Psalms 119:89 "ל (LAMED).For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."
Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

So, His Word Cannot change and it stays they same forever according to the final authority (KJV) of this debate, and not according to the catholic church's opinions or interpretations!

So I have met that requirement!

Matthew 10:33 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

I pray that my opponent does not deny the Word in favor of man's changing ways!

Jeremiah 17:5 "" Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

1. Rebuttal

My opponent's response consisted of empty accusations of "fairy tales" and irrelevant straw man arguments. He began his argument by stating that my entire case was a matter of opinion. To show that this is clearly not the case, I will provide several sources for each point I made regarding Protestant changes.

Demolition of church hierarchy
-Here is a source demonstrating the hierarchy present in the Catholic Church: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org...
-Here is a source demonstrating the lack of hierarchy in a Protestant church: http://yamhillchristianchurch.org...

Removal of several books from the Bible
-Here is a source describing the removal of 7 books from the Bible: http://www.ewtn.com...
-Here is a source for the Protestant Bible, lacking 7 books (the same version of the Bible used by my opponent): https://www.biblegateway.com...
-Here is a source for the Catholic Bible, complete with all 73 original books: http://www.usccb.org...

Abandonment of the central doctrine of the Eucharist
-Here is a source describing the unchanged Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist: http://www.vatican.va...
-Here is a source describing the Protestant abandonment of the Eucharist: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com...

Assertion of sola scriptura
-Here is a source describing the Protestant assertion of sola scriptura: http://www.ewtn.com...

Protestants holding church service on Sundays (which my opponent claims is sinful)
-Here are five sources (I'm happy to provide more if necessary) of Protestant churches who hold church services on Sundays:
http://www.grandviewcares.com...
http://www.test.fbcweddings.com...
http://centraloregonbaptistchurch.org...
http://fbccorvallis.org...
http://www.faithlincolncity.org...

Protestants promoting nativity scenes (which my opponent claims is sinful)
-Here are a few sources showing nativity scenes at Protestant churches:
http://assets.nydailynews.com...
http://www.pieandcoffee.org...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

My opponent stated "I must remind my opponent once again that the rules of this debate state that "We will stay within the KJV bible"!"I'm not sure what this fuss was about, as I've been using the KJV Bible (as requested) throughout the entire debate.

2. Protestant Changes

Throughout the course of this debate, I have shown that Protestants have changed "laws and times" in several manners, including but not limited to:
-demolishing church hierarchy
-removing several books from the original Bible
-abandoning the central doctrine of the Eucharist
-asserting the problematic doctrine of sola scriptura

My opponent has spent the entire debate arguing one single point: that the Catholic Church holds Mass on Sundays as opposed to Saturdays. In all that time, however, he has failed to both (1) show that holding church services on Sundays is a sin and (2) show that it is only Catholics who hold church services on Sundays. Above, I provided 5 source links to Protestant church webpages which list their sunday worship service times. I think that this is ample evidence that the Catholic Church is not the sole church who worships on Sundays instead of Saturdays.

3. Analogy

In the previous round, my opponent implied that Protestants ought not be held accountable for changes they have made because they were not the first temporal church to make these changes (i.e. worshipping on Sundays as opposed to Saturdays). To show the absurdity of this argument, I provided an analogy (see my last argument). My opponent did not respond at all to this, so for now I will assume that he has dropped that argument.

4. Summary

At the beginning of the debate, my opponent took on the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof in showing that his assertion (that the Catholic Church is the sole church that has changed the times and laws of God) is true. Recall that in order to accomplish this, my opponent must (1) show that the Catholic Church's changing of a particular law has been against the will of God and (2) show that the Catholic Church is the only church to have ever changed a law. As my opponent has been unable to do either of these, he has thus far failed to carry the burden of proof in this debate.

5. Sources
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org...
http://yamhillchristianchurch.org...
http://www.ewtn.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.usccb.org...
http://www.vatican.va...
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com...
http://www.ewtn.com...
http://www.grandviewcares.com...
http://www.test.fbcweddings.com...
http://centraloregonbaptistchurch.org...
http://fbccorvallis.org...
http://www.faithlincolncity.org...
http://assets.nydailynews.com...
http://www.pieandcoffee.org...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://oce.catholic.com...
http://www.catholicculture.org...
Debate Round No. 4
amigodana

Pro

Well, I see that my opponent still is having a hard time understanding the terms and conditions of this debate. Neither is he understanding the topic at hand. However, he has finally given an attempt at showing some form of disagreement and the sources. So I will respectfully address each one as he applied them.

Demolition of church hierarchy
-Here is a source demonstrating the hierarchy present in the Catholic Church: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org......
-Here is a source demonstrating the lack of hierarchy in a Protestant church: http://yamhillchristianchurch.org......

My response; There are two separate interpretations, Yes, and only God is the final authority! Neither one is in accordance to the Bible (see scriptures following)! So there is no need to digress into a separate debate. However, in relation to our debate topic, WHERE does either one suggest that they are specifically and knowingly changing the bible in complete contradiction to it and then basing their authority on that change. This article is simply a question of interpretation, reserved for another debate!

Romans 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
Romans 3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

Removal of several books from the Bible
-Here is a source describing the removal of 7 books from the Bible: http://www.ewtn.com......
-Here is a source for the Protestant Bible, lacking 7 books (the same version of the Bible used by my opponent): https://www.biblegateway.com......
-Here is a source for the Catholic Bible, complete with all 73 original books: http://www.usccb.org......

My response; There are two separate interpretations, Yes, and only God is the final authority! Neither one is in accordance to the Bible (see scriptures following)! So there is no need to digress into a separate debate. However, in relation to our debate topic, WHERE does either one suggest that they are specifically and knowingly changing the bible in complete contradiction to it and then basing their authority on that change. This article is simply a question of interpretation, reserved for another debate!

Romans 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
Romans 3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

Side note on this matter; Why did the catholic church ban the bible only to claim they brought it to us, that seems contradictory or perhaps even deceptive.
http://news.google.com...

Abandonment of the central doctrine of the Eucharist
-Here is a source describing the unchanged Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist: http://www.vatican.va......
-Here is a source describing the Protestant abandonment of the Eucharist: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com......

My response; There are two separate interpretations, Yes, and only God is the final authority! Neither one is in accordance to the Bible (see scriptures following)! So there is no need to digress into a separate debate. However, in relation to our debate topic, WHERE does either one suggest that they are specifically and knowingly changing the bible in complete contradiction to it and then basing their authority on that change. This article is simply a question of interpretation, reserved for another debate!

Romans 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
Romans 3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

Assertion of sola scriptura
-Here is a source describing the Protestant assertion of sola scriptura: http://www.ewtn.com......

My response; There are two separate interpretations, Yes, and only God is the final authority! Neither one is in accordance to the Bible (see scriptures following)! So there is no need to digress into a separate debate. However, in relation to our debate topic, WHERE does either one suggest that they are specifically and knowingly changing the bible in complete contradiction to it and then basing their authority on that change. This article is simply a question of interpretation, reserved for another debate!

Romans 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
Romans 3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

Side note; Under the terms and conditions stated at the beginning of this debate my opponent agreed to making the Bible the final authority in this debate. Not his interpretations!

Protestants holding church service on Sundays (which my opponent claims is sinful)
-Here are five sources (I'm happy to provide more if necessary) of Protestant churches who hold church services on Sundays:
http://www.grandviewcares.com......
http://www.test.fbcweddings.com......
http://centraloregonbaptistchurch.org......
http://fbccorvallis.org......
http://www.faithlincolncity.org......

My response; My claim is an agreement with the catholic church that it is the commandment of God to worship on Saturday!

Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Exodus 20:9 "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:"
Exodus 20:10 "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

Since this is the only thing that all faiths agree upon the interpretation of, then it is the very thing that we are discussing in this debate! And as I pointed out previously, following someone else's change does not constitute making the change, this also does not make an excuse for who you are following either. This debate is not over who is perfect and following all the laws and times (see following scripture), but, its about who has directly thought to changed them. Can my opponent show any evidence that the catholic church lied and the change of the sabbath is the responsibility of the protestant church's?

Ecclesiastes 7:20 "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

The catholic church and its the church alone that has claimed responsibility for; making that change. They admit that they have no scriptural authority but it is they that made the change in contradiction to the scripture. This is what my evidence shows.

Protestants promoting nativity scenes (which my opponent claims is sinful)
-Here are a few sources showing nativity scenes at Protestant churches:
http://assets.nydailynews.com......
http://www.pieandcoffee.org......
http://2.bp.blogspot.com......

My Response; WHERE do they suggest that they are specifically changing the bible in direct conflict and basing their authority on that change as the catholic faith has so proudly stated. Again, it still is about two separate interpretations!

Romans 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
Romans 3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

2. Protestant Changes
Throughout the course of this debate, I have shown that Protestants have changed "laws and times" in several manners, including but not limited to:
-demolishing church hierarchy
-removing several books from the original Bible
-abandoning the central doctrine of the Eucharist
-asserting the problematic doctrine of sola scriptura

My Response; He has only shown his interpretations as previously discussed.

NO where has my opponent yet to show that protestants or any other faith for that matter have come out and publicly announced that they know what the bible says, but they are changing it in anyway! As I have shown with each subject that my opponent has addressed, those articles are simply a matter of interpretation reserved for another debate and nothing more. My opponent has continuously made attempts at shifting everyone's attention from the facts to other debates. We must stick to the topics that all are in agreement over.

The catholic church alone has publicly announced that they have thought to change the times and laws in direct conflict with scripture with no scriptural authority! There is no other church that has made such egregious statements!

Proverbs 17:24 Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth.
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Proverbs 29:25 The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.

Source; http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

Burden of Proof

My opponent was responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate by showing that it is specifically the Catholic Church that is being referred to in Daniel 7:25. In order to carry this burden, he had two requirements to fulfill:

(1) show that the Catholic Church's changing of a particular law has been against the will of God
and
(2) show that the Catholic Church is the only church to have ever changed a law.

In attempt to fulfill these requirements, my opponent has presented only one argument (that has not been dropped). He argued that the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is sinful. As I have shown throughout this debate, this argument is a mere assertion that has not been backed with any sort of justification at all. Furthermore, my opponent has been unable to answer to the objection I posed to this argument; namely, that thousands of Protestant churches have made the exact same change to holding church services on Sundays. Thus, my opponent has been unable to fulfill either of the two requirements. He has failed to show that the changing of days from Saturday to Sunday has been against the will of God. Additionally, even if this change were against the will of God, my opponent has failed to account for the fact that the Catholic Church is clearly not the only church to have made this change.

Protestant Changes

In addition to refuting my opponent's argument based on the changing of the Sabbath day, I presented four examples of Protestant changes that have been made over time. I will respond to my opponent's rebuttal on these points:

i. Demolishing Church hierarchy

My opponent made no response to this point (it appears that he accidentally copied and pasted his response to point ii. into this section).

ii. Removing several books from the original Bible

Here, my opponent admits that the Protestant version of the Bible is different than the original Bible. This seems to me to be a concession.

iii. Abandoning the central doctrine of the Eucharist

My opponent made no response to this point (it appears that he accidentally copied and pasted his response to point ii. into this section).

iv. Asserting the problematic doctrine of sola scriptura

My opponent made no response to this point (it appears that he accidentally copied and pasted his response to point ii. into this section).

The Sabbath

Even in the final round, my opponent continues to dodge this issue. He responds to my pointing out that Protestant churches also worship on Sundays by stating:

"My claim is an agreement with the catholic church that it is the commandment of God to worship on Saturday!"

Is this a concession as well? There was absolutely no response regarding the services held by Protestant churches on Sundays.

My opponent continues to argue that because the Catholic Church was made the first temporal change from Saturday to Sunday, they are in sin while all other churches who have made the very same change ought to be free of charge for the absurd reason that they were not the first temporal church to make the change. I responded to this point earlier with an analogy, of which my opponent seems to have completely ignored. I will repost this analogy below as I want to make the absurdity of my opponent's argument (and his lack of response) clear:

Analogy

My opponent seems to be implying that because the Catholic Church was the first church to temporally worship on Sundays, his burden of proof has been shouldered. This is palpably false. I'll use an example to illustrate the absurdity of my opponent's argument:

Let's say that a large group of people decides to steal from their local shopping mall. They go from store to store, taking what they want before moving on to the next. A man, in his home, watches this shoplifting frenzy take place on the local news station. The man thinks to himself, "What am I doing, sitting here, when I could be stealing like they are?" This man drives to the local shopping mall where the shoplifting frenzy is taking place, and upon arriving he goes into several stores, taking what he wants and moving on to the next. The man is arrested by the police for shoplifting. "But I wasn't the first one to do it!" He exclaims. "It was that large group of people who broke the law!"

Can you imagine the police officers responding, "Ah, of course you're right! We'd better set you free and only arrest the first person who committed this crime." No! Clearly, this man has broken the law. It is not a valid argument for the man to say that because he was not the first person to steal, he ought not be held accountable for the crime.

In the very same way, if my opponent considers worshipping on Sundays to be a "crime" against God, then anyone who worships on Sundays is guilty of that crime, not just the first church to temporally begin worshipping on Sundays.

If my opponent wants to indict the Catholic Church as being the sole church being referred to in Daniel 7:25, then he must show that the Catholic Church is the sole church that has changed God's laws. Until he is able to do this, he has failed to carry his burden of proof.

Conclusion

Recall that in order to carry the burden of proof in this debate, my opponent had the responsibility of showing:

(1) show that the Catholic Church's changing of a particular law has been against the will of God
and
(2) show that the Catholic Church is the only church to have ever changed a law.

As my opponent has failed to show either (1) or (2) to be true, along with his lack of response to the points I made regarding Protestant changes, it seems to me that we can reasonably conclude that the Catholic Church was not being specifically singled out in Daniel 7:25.

I'd like to thank my opponent for his participation in this thought-provoking debate. I hope there are no hard feelings, as I consider my opponent to be a brother in Christ. I look forward to any future discussions!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
I think you may have posted this at the same time that I posted my response.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
It is, of course, Impossible, to change the Times & Laws
of an Omnipotent, All-Powerful God.

There were MANY "laws" in the Old Testament that the so-called
"Holy Roman Catholic Church" discarded.

I think that one Major Time or Law that was changed was the change of
the so-called "lord's Day" from Saturday to Sunday,
apparently in 325 A.D.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
Every-time, LOL!!!

I don't think catholics really understand their own system.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
Who is God you might ask? Catholics usually have a hard time with this one:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I know how much you like for man to give you excuses to not listen to God.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
The final authority, scripture, after all; Do not interpretations belong to God?

Genesis 40:8 "And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you."

Take the debate and we will discuss the rest!!
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
Just a simple question. If you claim that the Catholic Church is changing law and someone else claims that the Catholic Church is fulfilling law, what authority do you appeal to in order to determine which interpretation is the right one?

And how about the Sabbath?
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
LOL!!!!!

You sure did get defensive didn't you?

Take the debate if that's what you think?
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
Who has the authority to say that the Catholic Church is "changing" these laws rather than "fulfilling" them, as the verse you quoted says?

Also, just out of curiosity, do you yourself practice the Sabbath?
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
And as far as times being changed, how about the sabbath.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
The laws in the bible. But to be more specific if you need, the ten commandments to start with.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
amigodana1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con quoted from the wrong translation of the Bible, so conduct to Pro. Con negated Pro's arguments by showing the Sabbath was never moved. Pro had more sources.