You cannot answer this question.

I sure can answer it, and I did, but you never addressed my response.

	The answer is, the things that were not revealed to the early apostles are the times or the seasons.

Well obviously.

	Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

	Times and seasons is a mystery to the early apostles. The mystery of times and seasons (also called watches in the Bible) was revealed to Apostle Arsenio Ferriol. That is the reason why even you cannot understand the Fourth Watch. Mysteries are revealed only to the church.

So in other words, your very own church violates one of your qualifications of being a true church, by having an unbiblical name and using an unbiblical concept, but you don't want to admit it, so you make up an excuse so you can cop out. Lol!! Thank you so much for this post. I expected you to use bad logic, but I was just hoping for a response like this one. You truly are in a cult!

Your church's very own name violates the reasoning that you use about names to show that a church is true. "Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ" might fit well with the Bible, but "4th Watch" does not. The 4th Watch as the name for the end time is an unbiblical concept. The fourth watch refers to the fourth period of time that divides the days, used when soldiers would be on guard. No where does it state that the end time is a distinct period of time and/or that it is to be known as the 4th Watch.

This is an invention of Arsenio Ferriol, and he is obviously using the 4th Watch as a way to name the end times by using the watches in the Bible. And he's trying to be clever, which is cool, but the watches in the Bible are not periods of time in the way that Arsenio is trying to use them as, and the Bible never mentions that the end times is known as the 4th Watch. This means that the church has a non-biblical aspect. You told me that you would prove to me that your church is a true church because you are all according to the Bible, and that one of the qualifications of being a true church is that you have a name that is according to the Bible. But you can't find any verses in the Bible to prove this.

Instead, you rely on your cultic behavior to get yourself out of the trouble that you have just put yourself into. So because you can't find a verse to Biblically support the notion of the 4th Watch, you're just going to cop out and tell me that this was something revealed to your cult leader and that only members of your cult can understand. Nice. Of course, this is complete bull. Your cult leader is a liar and unbiblical too.

Whenever someone resorts to this type of behavior, it is a red flag that the person you are talking to does not in fact know what they're talking about, and that there is a good chance they are part of a cult.

The truth is, when an organization states that there are "mysteries" and secrets whose answers are revealed only when joining the organization, they are only using lies and deception to lure you into a trap. This kind of behavior is one of the surer signs that you are dealing with a cult.

All of this is especially true when the leader of such an organization claims that these answers were revealed only to them. Such leaders often make the bogus claim that they are an angel, or the second coming of Jesus, or in your case...an apostle. Such leaders say things like this in order to lure you in, trap you, and program you, usually to obtain something from you, whether it's money, glory, or power...and they make up excuses like this when they cannot explain something any other way. Of course the 4th Watch religion goes against the Bible in many ways, and when the leader of the cult cannot explain them in the Bible, he resorts to telling everybody that because he is an apostle sent by God, that God himself has revealed to him the truth, and so it is then okay to bypass the Bible, which you admit you are doing here. And when this leader then makes promises to you which offer something like an eternity in Heaven if you join his church, and makes the claim that you will be damned to Hell if you don't, then it cannot be denied that you are being petitioned by a cult. They can make all the promises and excuses they want to, but they are never able to backup or verify these bogus and cultic claims. I can just as easily come out and claim that I am an angel, and tell everyone that I know the answers to mysteries, and that I will tell you what they are if you join my church and pay me 10% of your income every week. But like your apostle in your cult, I would not be able to backup my claims.

I understand that there are scenarios when somebody can't understand something unless they meet a requirement that allows them to understand it, but these are not the same as the cultic scenario we are talking about now.

For instance, I know that if an underground cave was discovered, it would be a great mystery as to what lied within it, and the only way you could get the answers to any mysteries associated with the cave, is to go in there. Also, if someone was to start talking to me about quantum mechanics, I would probably get lost and not understand them because I am not a part of the scientific community that is educated in that field of science. But there are two differences with your church.

First of all, regarding your church, a leader of an organization has made a huge and unusual claim that he cannot backup and promises he cannot fulfill. He cannot verify that he is a true apostle. He cannot show that God even exists at all or that the Bible is even true to begin with. He has never been tested, and the reason why is because he's a CULT LEADER.

And two, you said you were going to prove to me Biblically that your church has a true name and teaches true Biblical teachings. Well, show me where in the Bible it talks about the 4th Watch being a period of time in which the end of the world will come about. If you can truly prove to me Biblically that this is true, then it should not matter what mysteries were revealed to your cult leader.

But in any case, if you are going to ask for a debate and then tell me that you will prove to me that your church is the true church because it's based on the Bible, then you better be able to follow through with what you say. If the church is truly Bible-based, then you should be able to find verses in the Bible which support your claims. Now it's one thing to find verses which even though they don't verify your claim, they might at least support it to a certain degree...but don't tell me that the Bible proves a claim you make but then hide behind your cult leader and tell me that it's not in the Bible but it was revealed to him by God, and so I wouldn't understand. You are once again violating my regulations which cover reasoning. You just seriously lack reasoning skills. But the saddest part is that you are clearly a victim of the 4th Watch cult leader...and for that I feel sorry for you.

And just one more thing to comment about this; I was a part of your church and this "mystery" was never revealed to me. Of course, you'll probably just say that it wasn't revealed to me because I wasn't a true Christian or some unintelligent thing like that, but it would only be another cop out.

	You are wrong. The Bible indeed teaches and instructs that the true church must have a name church of Christ or church of God. Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Whatever things written in the past were written to teach the disciples. The Greek word used for teach in this verse is didaskalia, which means instruction. The same principle is stated in the following verse: 1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." The things in the past were written to serve as examples, specifically for the disciples living in the end time. In the Bible, what are the names of the true church? 2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:" Romans 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings." The Bible instructs these names as the names of the true church. These names are examples for the disciples to follow. If the church's name is incorrect, then the church is automatically false, because it is not Biblical.

You gave me several verses from the Bible, and I'm not sure why you did that since none of them say or even imply rules for naming a church, or that in order for a Christian church to be "true", it needs to have "Christ" or "God" in its name. You keep doing this. You find verses in the Bible whose truths you feel you can stretch to make it sound true enough in order to believe something that in actuality is not true at all. That doesn't work on me because I'm too smart for it. Again, show me where in the Bible it gives clear rules on how to name your church. But you can't. You're just trying to come up with any idea you can think of that will somehow "prove" your cult is the true church, but the name of a church does not matter. Now, you wanna' give me more Bible verses?

	In this chapter (Ephesians chapter 2), the church is likened to a building. The components of the building are clearly enumerated in this chapter: Jesus Christ as the corner stone, the apostles and prophets, and the Jews and Gentiles that are believers. Since Jesus Christ is a person, the Jews and Gentiles are persons, therefore the foundation of the apostles and prophets are not teachings, but the actual persons. The building (which is the church) consists of people or persons.

Okay, looking at this verse, in order to determine whether or not a living apostle is needed in a true church, we need to answer this one question first:

Are the apostles and prophets themselves acting as the foundation to a metaphorical building which represents the church, or are their teachings acting as the foundation?

I still feel that the apostles and prophets are not the foundation, but yet their teachings are. I feel this way because first of all, the version of the verse you showed me is the only one of the several versions that I read which more clearly treats them as a foundation. Every other version I read does not do this, but instead implies that it is not themselves which are the foundation, but something of them, which would most likely be their teachings. This concept is supported by verses in which Paul spoke to Timothy.

	2 Timothy 1:13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

	2 Timothy 2:2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

From these two verses, you can see that the apostle Paul is telling his successor Timothy to keep Jesus' teachings as heard by Paul. The teachings were the foundation of the church and Timothy was to carry out these teachings as a successor to his apostle, yet was never called or appointed as an apostle himself, nor was anyone else. Why? The only implication here is that because an apostle was simply not needed...only the teachings, which were the foundation...not the apostles themselves.

Now, with all of that said, I do agree that in addition to yours, even though it's not as direct, all of the versions of that verse you gave me do liken the apostles to a building, and thus I think that the idea that the apostles themselves are the foundation is possible. In fact, I'll even go so far as to add to your side that it would make sense for God to want a living apostle leading his churches. After all, the Bible is so cryptic, and since salvation is so important, I would think having a special teacher actually appointed by God would be important and helpful. But then again, rarely does God do anything in the Bible that makes sense, so we can't really go on that.

But I want to make it clear that I am not assuming that an apostle is not needed in a true church because of this information alone. I am not saying that it is clear that the verses talk about the foundation as being the teachings and not the apostles themselves, because it is not. And I am also not saying that the verses in which Paul spoke to Timothy prove anything, because they don't. What I am saying, is that it is all evidence which does support the idea that Ephesians 2:20 is talking about the foundation as being the teachings and not the apostles. But I cannot prove that, and I'll be the first one to tell you that the evidence is not strong enough to make a decision on the matter, but I do think it supports my hypothesis more than it supports yours. In any case, as my idea cannot be proven, neither can yours.

But let's forget that for a moment and let's suppose that I did agree with you and that Ephesians 2:20 did in fact mean that the apostles were indeed the foundation of the church. Again I still think that it would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that apostles are still needed today.

Consider this: Any building has a foundation, and whenever a foundation fails and breaks, that building would also crumble. But what happens when that happens? Persons come along and they build a new building with a new foundation. This new foundation is different than the original, but it is based on the same foundation that was set before, and the new building itself, though different, is still modeled after the original. Why can it not be that way for the Christian religion?

Suppose the apostles were the foundation of the church, and that there was a time when such apostles were necessary. After those apostles died, the foundation went with it, but new teachers took over, and though they were not apostles, they were a different foundation forming a new church, that was still a church according to the teachings of Christ.

Look at Ephesians again:

	Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Understand that Paul is addressing one group of persons at that particular time, and he is not necessarily saying that apostles are to be the foundation of every church, only this church that he is establishing here in this passage. In other words, apostles might have been necessary in this time for this particular church, but not necessarily for every church that would ever exist.

Now of course there is only one ultimate church of God, but as we both know, the Christian religion has many sub-religions, and the ultimate church of God can be made of many different churches.

Looking closely at the verse, you will see that all of these persons together form a metaphorical building, with the apostles as the foundation, and Christ as the most important stone. And this building acts as a temple within the household (or family) of God.

Here, you can see that the household (or family) of God is the one ultimate church, and the temple is a church within that church. Notice that is says a temple. It does not say the temple, and this is the same in all the versions I read including both the NIV and the CEV. This indicates that there can be more than one church within the church of God. While this particular church that Paul is talking about needs apostles, there is no reason to believe that any other church needs them, which is supported by the verses I provided where Paul is speaking to his successor and non-apostle Timothy. When these apostles die, a new foundation will take their place, and new churches will form, just as when any foundation of a building fails and a new foundation replaces it. The most important thing is that the teachings remain the same, not that an apostle remains in the church.

Now if you have any more verses which show otherwise, please present them to me and I can tell you whether or not they support your notion of a necessary living apostle.

	You said that the foundation was already set, so apostles in the church today are not needed anymore. You are wrong. Apostle Paul was not included in the first twelve apostles. He was called to be an apostle when Christ already ascended to heaven. But Apostle Paul continued to build churches, laying the foundation, although the first apostles before Apostle Paul have established the church. The setting of apostles as the foundation of the church is not a one time process but a continuous one. This process continues at present time.

I know that Paul was not one of the original twleve apostles, but when I was talking about the foundation already being established by the apostles, I was inlcuding him as part of that foundation as well. When Paul was creating churches, he was establishing the foundation, which were his and the other apostles' teachings, for those churches. And when he died, those churches already had those teachings as their foundation and thus an apostle was not necessary for the churches to continue. My previous response has already addressed why I disagree with your statement that the setting of apostles as the foundation is a continuing process.

	You also said that we teach that there are no prophets today. You are wrong. You misinterpreted us. We believe that there are prophets in the New Testament. The prophets in the New Testament are under the administration of the apostles. What's ended are the prophets as the chief sent ones or primary leaders of the people of God in the Old Testament. Prophets are the primary administrators of the nation of God in the Old Testament. In the New Testament prophets are under the administration of the apostles.

Okay, for this I might be incorrect. However, my information is only based on Jonathon Ferriol's own words. I've heard him state what I said twice and I never heard him say anything about what you said here. I will speak with our team and modify this claim if you can provide me with proof that this is what the 4th Watch believes. Such proofs can be in the form of a YouTube video where Jonathon explains apostles and prophets, or an article from a website, etc.

	You are wrong. The Bible is not for private interpretation.

I agree that no one should claim to be an expert on the Bible unless they are properly educated on it. That is why you should not trust Arsenio Ferriol to interpret it. Only a qualified scientist, historian, and fluent speaker of the original Biblical languages should be trusted as qualified interpreters.

	2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Fair enough. That's why I agree that the Bible makes it clear that a good teacher is important, but that does not mean that a teacher needs to be a special person sent by God (apostle).

	You cannot find a verse in the Bible that those who were NOT SENT by God are authorized to teach faith and truth.

You're right, I can't. But at the same time, you can't seem to find a verse that says those who are ONLY sent by God are authorized to teach, either.

	In the Bible, only the apostles and the companions of the apostles can teach faith and truth. The companions of the apostles were taught by the apostles.

You still have yet to prove this.

	Only the sent ones of God can teach and preach the truth. They are the ones who have the authority. That is why I quoted 1 Timothy 2:7, "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity."

Yes, and that is why I keep telling you that apostles are important, but this verse and every verse you have shown me does not show that they are necessary.

	FIND A VERSE in the Bible that those who were NOT SENT by God are authorized to teach faith and truth.

I can't. Show me a verse in the Bible that those who were not sent by God are NOT authorized.

	You are wrong. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. In the next verse: 1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. The context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is in verse 13. Take note of the first word: FOR. The word FOR is used as a conjunction. This applies only to wives since Adam and Eve were husband and wife. Wives should submit themselves to their husbands because the husband is the head of the wife.

Again, nowhere does it even suggest that these commands apply only to wives. If the verses were pertaining to wives, then they would have said so. However, I do also understand that translation can get lost, and perhaps the original language did not have words to distinguish "woman" from "wife". This is like when the prophecy in the Bible states that a virgin would give birth to Jesus, yet the original language did not have a word specifically for virgin, and the text obviously meant "young woman", not "virgin". However, I do not believe that there was no word to describe a wife.

But the question then is what verse 13 for? You want to make it mean that the verse is saying that only wives shouldn't speak in church, but I say the author is clearly only using Adam and Eve as an excuse to suppress the women, through the fact that Adam was created first, and since Eve was second, so too was she to be treated as a second class citizen. This fits the Bible well, as new-borns are automatically branded as sinners for the sins of their parents and ancestors (Adam and Eve again).

But let's forget all that and say you're right...that these verses only apply to wives. If that's the case, then you still got a hell of a problem! Wives talk all the time in church, as pastors, servants, and gossippers. So if these verses are to be applied to wives, how come I still hear them yacking?

	Husbands should love their wives. If you say that these verses pertain to all women, and especially prohibiting them to preach or teach, then that means women should not speak at all, anywhere at all times, because the verses say a woman should be quiet and silent.

No, because the verses are clearly talking about particular moments, such as when in church or when learning about their religion.

	1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Only that one part pertains only to wives, not the rest.

	Clearly these verses pertain to wife and husband relationship of members. These verses do not prohibit women to become pastors or preachers.

You just told me that they pertain to wives. Therefore, wives shouldn't be able to preach or be pastors, yet how many pastors do you have in your church that are also wives?

	Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And yet you ignore this by treating women as second to men...

	Moreover, there are many women preachers in the Bible.

	QUESTION 1: What is a mystery? Answer this first then I will proceed to other questions.

Roland; I grow tired of your kiddie games. You are rude, and you cannot back up your claims; but you also have poor debating skills. Are you seriously now asking me what a mystery is?...and that you won't proceed until I answer you? Seriously?

What is the purpose Roland? Do you feel it's acceptable to take time out of the debate to ask me what a mystery is? Asking me this question and then telling me that you will proceed with the other questions after I answer is silly. I suspect that the only reason you're asking me this question is because you don't really have any questions to ask, just like me; but after all the crap you gave me about not cross-examining you, you probably don't want to break your own "rules"; and so you're now asking me questions just to ask questions. This is not a proper way to debate.

This is getting crazy. You don't have to ask me questions Roland. This isn't an interview; it's a debate. Debate me! You're not asking any questions here for clarification, or for any other purpose than to simply have a question so that you do not break your so-called rule. If you were asking a question for clarification on something, such as if you were asking me what I meant by something I said in my post, or if my view on something affected the route of your debate, then a question would be appropriate; but if you want to talk to me about mysteries, then just do so; no need to ask me what a mystery is when you already know and are going to talk about it. I want you to stop wasting time, and to just say what you have to say.