Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
RFD for Church Foundations Debate
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 5:24:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This vote is on behalf of the DDO Voter's Union.
I will address the arguments made in the debate "Did Jesus found the Catholic Church."
The debate can be found here: http://www.debate.org...
A note to any readers: I am typing this as I read the debate.
1) I will begin with initial arguments:
Pro cites numerous authorities in the early Catholic Church. While these citations would seem legitimate arguments at first, they are no more than a mass-appeal to authority. They are also biased, and must then be held as fallacious and thusly disregarded.
Pro"s use of Matthew 16:18 as proof of Christ"s founding the Catholic Church is a semantic misunderstanding of what is being said, and Con correctly points this out, and then highlights the flaws of Pro"s logic using analogies.
Con asserts that the Catholic Church could not have been founded by Jesus for two reasons: 1) The Church was founded by people who had heard the teachings of Jesus. Paul and Peter simply visited these churches, and even had to write letters concerning the corrupt practices in some of the churches (which are indicative of an imperfect founder, which is the opposite of Jesus); 2) The Catholic Church was founded by the Roman government takeover of the original Roman Church.
Just a side note: Con cited unbiased, academic sources, so these citations can be held in much higher regard.
Con also shows how Catholicism is contrary to the original teachings of Jesus Christ, and then cites clearly-stated biblical verses to support this claim.
In R2, Pro states: "I will first take a look at Matthew 16:18 to clear up your misconceptions about the verse." However, Pro does not support any statements regarding Jesus not being the rock of the church. This is pointed out by Con.
Con shows that Pro again misunderstands scripture (Matthew 16:19) by saying this:
"And in regards to Pro's Matthew 16:19 verse... The phrase "I will give you the keys..." doesn't imply Peter had power over a church... It meant Peter was allowed to open the religion to the gentiles... An act deemed unacceptable in Judaism""
Con then cites Acts 17:7, which clarifies the intent behind the statement made in Matt 16:19, and then states that this simply implies power within the religion. Con again uses an analogy to further his point.
Con really loves using analogies, but these analogies function -- they correctly prove his point. Also, Con"s statement regarding St. Ignatius stands, as he reveals the true meaning of the used words by showing their original definitions. Con correctly points out how "Against Heresies" does not refute his case, and points out the flaw in Pro"s logic with yet another analogy.
Con connecting the imperfection of the Church to the imperfection of its founders is correct. He does not point his out, but it is a like-father, like-son relationship. If Christ had established the Church, it would be perfect.
Con"s logic prevails concerning the calling of certain individuals "father." The way he brains it makes sense: Abraham founded Judaism and is the father of the Hebrew culture; you also call your dad "father." Neither of these cases concern priests.
Con"s use of "Gill"s Exposition" proves the point that only God can forgive sins. So does yet another analogy concerning a math teacher.
Con"s justification of why Judas was replaced is supported by the use of scripture (Acts 1:30).
Pro ultimately failed to show how Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Con uses somewhere near the tenth analogy using KFC to prove his point, and then actually points out my previous statement: Pro only showed how Peter was a teacher of the Church, not how Jesus was the founder.
Con is the victor in this debate.
"Is your fantasy to inseminate the site with etiquette and make it artificially mega evolve into a loveasaur" -Mikal
"dey just robbin storez n sheit, dey dindu nuffin." -Triangle
"eh..eyuhm uh...uh-er-uh-homosexual!" -Vaarka
I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.