|
Now that we have explained most everything needed to know about the 4th Watch including its cult leader, Arsenio Ferriol, we want to present to you a special piece on refuting his claims and debunking his apostleship. It is very important that we provide this information, as there are too many persons who have been fooled into believing this con-man, and too many persons who will in the future. This piece tells you exactly what he claims, why they are incorrect, and what to expect to hear from and say to him or one of his 4th Watchers should they ever try to convince you that he is what he say s he is.
Okay, so before we go ahead and debunk the ridiculous claims by this false teacher of God, let's make a list of what claims he is making. The PMCC 4th Watch Apostle claims the following:
- Everyone must learn the Bible
- Everyone must learn the Bible in order to go to Heaven and avoid Hell
- The Holy Bible is true
- God is real
- Everyone must learn from a teacher of the Bible
- A teacher of the Bible must be sent by God, an apostle
- The Bible is too complex to learn from someone not sent by God or non-apostle
- The Bible states that there must always be an apostle
- God gives apostles all the knowledge of the Bible
- Apostles are more qualified than experts who are not apostles
- He, Arsenio T. Ferriol, is an apostle
- Arsenio Ferriol is the only apostle of our time
- A prophecy in the Bible foretells of Arsenio as the Apostle of our time
- Only those who learn the Bible from him or his approved teachers are going to Heaven
These are the main claims made by 4th Watch apostle Arsenio Ferriol. These outrageous claims that he has made about religion in general, himself, and his own religion are not to be taken lightly. They are serious claims that need to be addressed. If we do not address these bogus claims, then more persons are likely to believe them and follow him. Our heart breaks every time a new fool accepts Arsenio Ferriol as their savior. Let's try to stop that from happening as much as possible.
Before we begin breaking down these claims, let us first explain that like all fantastic claims made by persons, it is unwise to automatically believe them upon learning about them. In order to believe anything in this world, you must have sufficient cause to do so. Every claim made by an apostle must be verified to be true before you can believe them. If you choose to believe them without sufficient reason to, then you are a fool. And in real life when everyone is in a situation where they have to make a choice about something, particularly an important choice, would you believe something about one of your options just because you wanted to, or would you want to know everything you could about all the options you had ? Suppose you were buying a car for instance. Why then would anyone who considers their salvation to be the most important thing to them, choose to believe the claims made by a man who cannot verify the claims that he makes? It doesn't make sense.
So what we're going to do here, is go through these claims one by one in an orderly fashion, and break them down, explaining what they mean, how the apostle might defend them, and how he should actually go about verifying them. Ready? Okay, it's time to refute an apostle!
So the 4th Watch's apostle's first claim is that everyone must learn the Holy Bible. The Bible of course, is the source of all knowledge of Christianity for most Christians. It is a book made of several smaller books, all of which contain works of fiction that together tell the tales of a certain god and his followers.
So the first question we can start with is do we need to learn the Bible. Is learning the Bible important or even necessary? As most normal persons know, there is little value in learning the Bible for average individuals. Since no scientific evidence can verify that the Bible is true or that God is real, it should be treated as nothing more than an ancient book with stories of fiction. So no, we do not need to learn the Bible.
Of course, that doesn't mean that learning about the Bible has no value at all. In fact, from a scientific, historic, and literary point of view, the Bible is important because it helps us to understand more about the Biblical people including their culture, as well as what the world was like during those times. Even if its stories are fictitious, the Bible itself is a part of history. The actual content of the stories are not real, but the stories themselves are. Understanding the stories helps us to understand history, which is important for all peoples. It's like Tom Sawyer. Such a story is fictional, but the story itself is still real, it's just the content of the story that isn't. But such a story helps us to understand life back when that particular story takes place. Though, the Bible is much more significant since it covers such a large time frame and is held as sacred to so many different peoples. Plus, along that note, there are some persons who are simply interested in Biblical history and wish to become an expert or teacher on the subject. So in this sense, the Bible is important to learn, but is still not necessary, and not important at all to average individuals. While it is significant to a scientist or historian, most other persons would simply see it as an entertaining story, nothing more.
Now even though the Bible is not true, because it is held so dear to so many persons, and because so many believe that the stories are not fiction, but are actually true, learning about the Bible is actually important just for this reason that so many mistakenly believe that it's true. By learning about the Bible, we are able to discredit it, and ultimately save persons from believing in its nonsense.
But obviously, Arsenio and other Christians would disagree with those statements. They of course believe that the Bible is important, and not just for certain individuals, but for everyone. To them, the Bible is not just a work of fiction, but the actual true word of God! And the reason why it is so important for every person to know and understand the Bible is because it has instructions on how to achieve salvation, or in other words, how to go to Heaven and avoid going to Hell. To many Christians, especially fundamentalists, if you do not learn the Bible, then God will send you to Hell when you die and you will spend the rest of eternity being tortured. And that's because he's so loving.
There are several verses in the Bible that supports the mainstream concepts of salvation. But here lies the very first problem that 4th Watchers and other Christians have about such claims. In order to use the Bible for any sort of knowledge or support for any claim one might make concerning God, such a person must show that the Bible is true and that God is real in the first place. If the Bible is not true and there is no God, then why does it matter what Christians and their teachers have to say about Heaven and Hell? Everything that they speak of and teach would have no meaning because they are based on falsehoods. So in order for anyone to take a Bible-preaching Christian seriously and to worry about Hell, anything that the Bible teaches must first be showed as being true.
A long time ago, most persons believed in the Holy Bible because they did not properly understand the world and we accepted the content in the Bible as true because it made the most sense to them at the time. We had little reason to disbelieve it, as there was no evidence to refute it and most persons at that time had not learned how to think in a rational and logical manner. Persons believed what was written in it because they desired answers, and even though nothing in the Bible was ever verified as truth, few persons were smart enough to question it, and since there was very little that anyone could do to refute it, they simply accepted everything that the Bible taught.
But things have changed. Still to this day, the Holy Bible has never been verified as being truthful. In fact, today we have refuted the Bible so successfully, that it has actually been verified as being untrue. There are many who try very hard to verify it as being true, but no one has been able to do so. Even today, the Bible continues to be discredited, and for a long time now has had no reasonable credibility. This is why Christianity and Judaism are dying religions. Their holy scriptures no longer have the credibility necessary to attract reasonable followers.
But how would one go about to actually verify the Bible as being true? Can it be done? Verifying the Bible as true is certainly not an easy task, but in order to do so, we would need scientific evidence that would strongly support the stories within it. But what kind of evidence do we need and how much ?
First of all, there is no question that the Bible does contain real life aspects such as humans, real persons that have existed, actual historical places, and even certain truthful events. But you have to remember that first of all, while the Bible might have certain aspects of truth to it or even be based on real characters, places, times, or events, that does not make the entire story true. Just look at how many movies we go see that are based on real life stories but are far from the actual truth. We have to stop thinking of the Bible as true simply because it might contain a character or two who we know actually lived, or because we discovered a new place somewhere in the world that happened to be in the there. We already know that much of the Bible contains or is based on truthful aspects. That stuff certainly helps and is part of the verification evidence that we definitely need, but it is not enough.
The biggest problem that the Biblical verification has is the inclusion of all of its fantastic aspects, which would consist of a supernatural, magical, or incredible nature. These are the things which we know cannot be. For instance, we know that a human cannot live inside the belly of a whale for three days and survive. We also know that serpents do not talk. Because the Bible contains so much fantasy within its pages, we already know to begin with that the Bible cannot be true. If the Bible didn't have such fantastic content, it would be much easier to believe. This is the obstacle that makes verifying the Bible impossible. We have to first scientifically show that such fantastic occurrences are possible. But even then, we would still need to verify the individual stories that are in the Bible. So even if for instance we were to find a talking serpent, we'd still need to know whether or not a talking serpent actually convinced a woman to eat a piece of forbidden fruit. This is the part of the Bible for which we have no evidence for. And when we say we have no evidence for the Bible, this is what we are referring to.
Of course, anything seems fantastic when we don't understand it or have yet to discover the truth. Much of what seemed impossible back then is nothing for us today. Take dinosaurs as an example. If ancient writings told of humungous monsters that roamed the earth before we actually discovered dinosaur bones, then we might call such stories crazy, until we actually discover the bones. So if for instance we were to discover talking serpents, the idea of a talking serpent in the Bible then wouldn't be considered so fantastic anymore. But this is the idea, to find evidence to make the Bible possible and ultimately true. Verifying these fantastic stories is part of the process and is the most difficult part. Ultimately, what matters as far as proving the Bible is how much evidence we have in the end to support it. If we are able to verify a large majority of it, then it would be rational to believe that it is true. Since we have so much evidence against it, the only rational belief would be that it is not true.
In fact, the fantasy aspects are the main reason why the Bible itself as a document of recorded history cannot be considered evidence. One of the best ways that we learn about history is from documented records. Much of the reason why we know that certain things have happened in the past is because persons wrote them down. But, you cannot take the Bible as a document of recorded history and believe every word it says simply because it is a document of recorded history. But how is it that scientists can use other documents such as those talking about Alexander the Great, as evidence, but not the Bible?
It is for the same reason that they cannot use the fantastic Legend of King Arthur books. It is because the Bible contains so much fantasy. It would be unreasonable to believe it simply because it was documented. But it isn't only that. Non-fantasy documents are not simply assumed to be true either. There are many verification procedures that go into verifying their authenticity and even then, no scientist will tell you that every such document is one-hundred percent true. But what is easier to believe? A story about war and war heroes, or a story about a man being swallowed by a whale and living inside its belly for three days before being spit out alive? And just think, the Bible is a huge story of many smaller stories with many more fantasy occurrences just like that one.
So, what would be some good examples of elements in the Bible which we could verify that would help verify the Bible as a whole? Well for starters, verifying that God exists would definitely give the Bible some credibility. But again, is there any evidence of God? No. And even if we were somehow amazingly able to show that there is a god, you would still need to verify that it is the Christian god. There are so many gods that have been invented over thousands of years and every one of those might be incorrect. But there are other things that can help give credibility to the Bible. How about finding Noah's ark? Of course, considering that the entire story of Noah's Ark was impossible, scientists would have to figure out how it could have possibly been true. Take for instance how the size of the ark was not nearly enough to carry all the animals and the fact that there is no evidence of a global flood in such a recent time. What about finding the Ten Commandments?
But it's more than just finding evidence for the Bible. You'd have to also somehow discredit all of the evidence against it. For instance, the Bible that we are trying to prove as true says that every word of it is true, yet we know that the Earth is a sphere, yet the Bible says it is not. In order for the Bible to be considered true, at least as perfectly as many Christians claim that it needs to be, then it would somehow have to be shown that the Earth is not a sphere after all. Good luck with that.
If all this cannot be done and a teacher of the Bible cannot even show that it is true or that God is even real, then there is no point in going any further and no reason to believe anything such a teacher has to say if what they say is based on the Bible's teachings. And, in addition to this, not only does the Bible need to be verified, it needs to be accurately interpreted. All too often, it is not, and cult leaders have a nasty habit of interpreting it to fit their own greedy and twisted desires.
Of course, as we already know, the Bible is a work of fiction and falsehoods. It has never been scientifically verified as being true and there is no evidence to support it. If Christian teachers use the Bible as the basis for their teaching, then there is no reason to believe what they say if they cannot first verify that the Bible is true to begin with. Of course, you can always humor them and see what they have to say, but if they rely on the Bible, then you know that they have no foot to stand on.
Now, some Christians do try the best they can to prove the Bible scientifically, but since science has never supported the Bible and because Christians have very little understanding of what science is, they fail miserably. But Christian teachers of the Bible, especially cult leaders, do not always try to prove the Bible through science. First of all, not only has science not been able to verify the truth of the Bible, but science has discredited the Bible almost completely. But most Christians don't even know how to prove the Bible scientifically because they don't know what it is in the first place, and what often ends up happening is the attempt by Christians to prove the Bible philosophically instead. This transition from science to philosophy is often missed by Christians, and philosophy gets mistaken for science. And on top of that, their philosophy is often bad too.
For instance, Christians say that living beings were designed by a designer. We could prove this scientifically by actually seeing someone designing a human being, and then comparing DNA to see how every living being was related, and then study many other pieces of evidence that would rationally conclude that every living being was indeed designed by a designer. But of course, this just isn't the case. Science has shown that living beings evolved, and were not designed. But Christians will attempt to prove design scientifically by actually using a philosophy. Christians will attempt to use logic to prove this concept. They will say that we are all obviously designed and therefore we require a designer, therefore God is real. Not only is this not scientific, but it's bad logic as well. First of all, you'd be going against science, which has already shown that we were not "obviously designed". And even if we were, this would not mean that a god created us, much less the Christian god.
And that brings us to another point. While Christians try to use philosophy to prove their god, they are the worst offenders of logic the world has ever known. Sometimes, they just don't know they're guilty of this. But sometimes, it's intentional. Christian teachers like the 4th Watch apostle often know that they cannot prove the Bible scientifically, so they instead resort to "trick logic " in order to trick an individual in believing that they have just proven the Bible. Trick logic is more formally known as "illogical reasoning", and is carried out through the use of logical fallacies, which we already touched up on and you can read here.
Such teachers like the 4th Watch apostle know that they cannot prove the Bible, but they also know that humans can be extremely naive and are easy to fool. Such teachers know that they do not need science to convince such persons that the Bible is true. Instead, they use logical fallacies to accomplish this. So even though the Bible cannot be proven, such Christian teachers often create the illusion that it has been.
But regardless of whether we need to learn the Bible or not, for whatever reason, if we wish to learn the Bible, how do we go about learning it? 4th Watchers are quick to inform you that you need a teacher. So the next question is, are they right? Forget about whether the Bible is true or not for now. If we wish to truly know and understand it, do we need a teacher? Well, not necessarily, though it is pretty reasonable to take advantage of one. We could certainly learn on our own. After all, most of us know how to read and comprehend what is written, and the Bible is made available in practically every significant language in the world, so just about anyone could pick up a Bible and start learning it. It really depends on how much you want to learn and why you are learning. Some are only looking for a basic understanding of the Bible, or some read it simply as a story. For these persons, a teacher is not really necessary. This is the case with most persons who read the Bible.
But let's be practical. Having a teacher can always help and is probably a much better way to learn than by doing so on your own. Plus, you have to remember that the Bible is an extremely complex and cryptic book. It is very difficult to understand certain areas, and even more so to understand it as a whole. While learning the Bible on your own might be acceptable for average readers who are only interested in having a basic understanding of it, or who are in it as a story, it might not be acceptable for those who are looking to have a deeper understanding of it.
Some persons are genuinely interested in the Bible, not just as a story, but perhaps for literary or historical reasons. In such cases, having a teacher can be crucial to gaining this desired understanding. There are also persons who genuinely have an interest and need to understand it, and understand it well. Such persons are looking to become experts and would include historians, scientists, and even teachers themselves. These persons need to be taught properly, and this involves the use of teachers.
But there are also many persons in the world who see the Bible as a book of truth and by them is considered the "word of God". To persons such as these, the Bible is not just an interesting read or story, and is more than just a piece of history, it is their very guide to life, and even death. Because of this, to these persons, it is very important that they learn the Bible correctly. To them, not doing so could mean that they won't go to Heaven and will go to Hell instead, and we couldn't have that now could we. All of this is even more important when such persons are looking to become a teachers themselves, such as pastors. If this is the case, a teacher is most important. Of course, when talking about teachers, when learning anything of importance, having more than one teacher is often necessary too. So in many cases, we agree that a teacher is necessary, but not in all cases.
Of course, the 4th Watch does not believe that the Bible is of no importance. They believe it is the word of God. So to them, a teacher is needed. But 4th Watchers place special emphasis on the necessity of a teacher. Why is this so? Well, the head 4th Watch teacher states that you cannot learn the Bible from just any teacher. For 4th Watchers, a true teacher of the Bible must be approved by God. In their terms, a teacher who is approved and sent by God himself is called an "apostle". Arsenio Ferriol teaches that God used prophets in the Old Testament time and uses apostles in the New Testament time. Arsenio doesn't explain why he's using apostles in our time, but that's a minor detail. They state that an apostle can approve others to teach, which means that they are also approved by God, but not directly sent by him as apostles are. But what this means for the 4th Watch, is that only apostles and their approved teachers can properly teach the word of God found in the Bible.
So only a teacher approved by God can properly teach the Bible? Well, that sort of makes sense. After all, the Bible is so cryptic that it could certainly help having a teacher who was approved by God, as you almost need God himself to explain certain part s of it. And it is because of this complexity that 4th Watchers often stress that Biblical teachers must be approved by God. But this actually brings up a very interesting point. When you think about it, one of the biggest challenges they face in verifying that the Bible is the word of God, is a problem of their own nature. An apostle and its approved teachers claim that a special teacher approved by God is necessary to teach others about the Bible due to its complexity. But the fact that God would make a book that is so complex that he'd have to send special teachers to explai n it to others is evidence itself that God is not perfect, and thus not real. So in a sense, apostles themselves help to disprove the Bible and God just by being apostles! But we only say that is evidence for the Bible not being real, it is not necessarily proof. But it is definitely something to think about.
But in any case, it is not for the complexity alone that the 4th Watchers say that a special teacher approved by God is necessary. They also say this because apparently, the Bible itself demands it. In fact, it is the 4th Watch's stance that there must always be an apostle within the Christian church. According to the 4th Watch cult leaders from their own website:
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible specifically states the only people who should preach and proclaim the words of God. It is clear that those entrusted to preach the words of God are the sent ones of God. The great commission was not left with just any of the believers but with God's sent ones only.
|
|
|
|
|
They get this idea from certain verses in the Bible. Let's look at the first one:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Timothy 1:11
And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone is going to have to show us where it says that a living apostle is needed at all times in the Christian church. Otherwise, this verse does absolutely nothing to show that an apostle or someone sent by God is necessary. All it does is show how the speaker of these words was appointed as a special teacher to teach word of God. This is another attempt by the 4th Watch to attach a false meaning to a Biblical verse by stretching the truth and making up facts. Again, where does it say that a living apostle is needed in the church? It doesn't.
Let's look at another one:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romans 10:15
And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a cult trick to make you believe something by reading only a portion of the Bible without taking into account what it says before and after. The 4th Watch wants you to believe that this verse is telling you that someone can't preach the gospel unless they were sent by God. But that's not what it says. So, let's read a few verses before and after this particular verse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romans 10:14-15
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's get real for a minute. This verse is simply saying that no one can hear the gospel unless a preacher is sent to them. That is all. This big idea about only an apostle being sent from God to teach the gospel is a large fabrication, no doubt part of a grand scheme to trick everyone into believing that you need an apostle, so that you will put your trust in the 4th Watch apostle and give him your money.
Now let's look at an interesting one. This verse was offered to us as proof that the Bible demands a living apostle in the Christian church at all times, during a debate. It goes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ephesians 2:20 (CEV)
You are like a building with the apostles and prophets as the foundation and with Christ as the most important stone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This verse is a bit more challenging to figure out. The verse seems to liken the Christian religion to a building, with apostles as the foundation. But when we read it, we noticed that the person who sent this to us used the CEV version of the Bible. We thought that was strange because the 4th Watch usually prefers the NIV version. Also, the CEV version isn't really that popular, so we thought it was rather strange that he would select this version. And since we investigate Biblical verses anyway, we went ahead and took a look at how different versions translate this same verse. What we found was interesting.
Like the 4th Watch in general, this member was very selective in the Bible version he chose to prove his claim. As the scientific and rational world knows, there are thousands of different versions of the Bible, each with different languages, different styles, different languages and styles of different cultures, kiddie versions, and several more. None of the translations are even close to accurately presenting the original meanings of the Biblical scriptures. This is just one of the many reasons why you cannot rely on the Bible for any "true" information. Further more, even if we knew the original languages used for the Bible, our culture would be too different to accurately understand what was trying to be said. Doing so would take scientists, historians, and language experts...all of which the 4th Watch cult leader is not.
Anyways, what we're trying to say is, this verse is stated very differently in other versions of the English Bible. We looked through quite a few different versions and none of them repeat this translation. They all say something different that means a different thing. Here are a few of the ones that we looked at:
All of these versions do not say that the church is like a building with apostles as the foundation. They suggest instead that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles. These are two completely different meanings. The version that this person used does suggest that a true church needs apostles, but every other version we've read does not. In case you don't understand, saying that the church is like a building with the apostles as the foundation does seem to suggest that an apostle is the foundation of the church, and therefore would reasonably suggest that an apostle is needed in the church today. But saying that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles is suggesting that the church is built upon the foundation already set forth by the apostles, most likely meaning through their teachings, not that they are the foundation themselves, and therefore, they are not needed for the church today...as the foundation is already there.
So 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?
In answering this question, we have to figure out how to attack the question. First off, which versions of the Bible can we rely on. We have two very different verses that mean two different things. So, are the apostles the foundation, or is the foundation someting of the apostles? And if the foundation is of the apostles, how do we know that the Bible is referring to their teachings and not something else?
Well, as far as deciding which version to use, as once being members of this horrible church, we know that the PMCC 4th Watch's preferred English Bible is the NIV, which is used almost exclusively to teach. This tells us that as far as the 4th Watch is concerned, the NIV should be the version to follow if they are the ones we are debating. It is only sometimes that pastors will use a different Bible, most often when they want to teach something that the other version does not teach. In other words, just like with what this member did with this verse, they pick and choose. How convenient it is for them to teach something that's not in their Bible, but when called out on it, they simply find a Bible that does have it and say, "This Bible says it, so it's okay.". But even so, the NIV would be the most likely choice.
But honestly, we really can't go just by that. The truth is, we cannot know for sure at this time what the true translation is, as we cannot produce an accurate translation of the original language of this verse. All we can do is examine the verse as critically as we can. When we look at the context of the verse, when we see how the speaker is talking about Jesus being a stone and how the church is like a building, it can still make sense no matter which verse you use that it is implying that the apostles themselves are the foundation. In fact, we think it's reasonable to believe that this is a possibility. In fact, we'll even go so far as to say 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, we 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 anyway.
So what actual evidence do we have that the verse actually means the foundation is not the apostles, but the teachings of the apostles? Well we can start with these two verses in which Paul is speaking 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. 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, some might consider Timothy to be an apostle anyways, and the 4th Watch might do so as well just to show that an apostle was always needed. But even if that's the case, you can clearly see here that the most important part of the church is the teachings of Jesus, and Paul never says here that an apostle needs to be appointed.
But we want to make it clear that we are not assuming that an apostle is not needed in a true church because of this information alone. We are 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 we are also not saying that the verses in which Paul spoke to Timothy prove anything, because they don't. What we are 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 we cannot prove that, and we'll be the first ones to say that the evidence is not strong enough to make a decision on the matter, but we do think it supports our hypothesis more than it supports theirs. In any case, as our idea cannot be proven, neither can theirs.
But even if we were to find out that the true translation is what the CEV version says, there is still a lot of uncertainty in concluding that the foundation of the church is the apostles themselves, and not their teachings which established the church. We still feel that it's possible that even by saying that the apostles are the foundation, that they don't actually mean the apostles themselves, but their teachings. After all, if this wasn't the case, then there could be no Christian church in existence today, because there are no apostles. What you have today are persons lying to the public, claiming to be apostles, like Arsenio Ferriol, and thus starting scam churches and cults like the PMCC 4th Watch scam church and cult.
But let's forget all of that for a moment and let's suppose that we did agree with them and that Ephesians 2:20 did in fact mean that the apostles were indeed the foundation of the church. Let's suppose that we actually believe that the Bible specifically means the apostles are to be the foundation, and not just that that's what the language is saying. For the sake of argument, we'll say here that this verse really does mean that the apostles are to be the foundation and thus the church does in fact need an apostle. Even believing this, again, we 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 all 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 we 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 we 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.
Consequently, this also implies that there can be more than one true church, despite what the 4th Watch teaches about them being the only true church.
And here's one more thing that's very interesting; We couldn't help but notice that the verses also say that the foundation is associated not only with apostles, but apostles and prophets. This means that if the foundation of the church is apostles and prophets, while they have their apostle in their church, where is the prophet? There is none. Jonathon Ferriol has said several times that there are no prophets today, because God only used prophets in the Old Testament. Taking this into consideration, that verse only does more to show that the 4th Watch church is not Biblical.
Now here's another verse that 4th Watcher's use to try and make the claim that not just anyone can learn the Bible, but that it must be taught by a special teacher sent by God. They say that the Bible is not for private interpretation, but must be interpreted by an apostle:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We agree that no one should claim to be an expert on the Bible unless they are properly educated on it. That is why these persons 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. But in any case, this verse once again does not show that a teacher needs to be a special person sent by God (spostle).
So we have looked at all of the verses that we know of which the 4th Watch uses to justify their teaching that a living apostle is needed in a true Christian church. But we have no choice but to conclude that the Bible does not support that teaching. But just because an apostle is not necessary, that doesn't mean that a church can't have an apostle. But it means that it is possible for other churches to be "true" and not have one. 4th Watchers should actually be relieved, as this is good news for them. After all, their church, the 4th Watch, does not actually have an apostle, only a scam-artist fraud pretending to be. This big idea about only an apostle being sent from God to teach the gospel is a large fabrication, no doubt part of a grand scheme to trick everyone into believing that you need an apostle, so that you will put your trust in the 4th Watch apostle and give him your money.
But again, if such Christian teachers have not been able to prove that the Bible is real, then these verses that they use to support their claims about having a teacher is meaningless. Because without evidence to support the concept that the Bible is true, there's no reason to believe that any of its verses are true. It's as simple as that.
Despite what their cult leader apostle might say, none of these verses show that a living apostle is needed today or at all times for the Christian religion, nor any "sent one" from God. At most, these verses suggest that a special teacher is very helpful and/or important to learning the gospel and the Christian religion. The cult leader Arsenio Ferriol, who calls himself the Living Apostle and God's Sent One, only wants you to believe this so that it will increase his chances of you following him and giving him money.
Despite what a cult leader apostle might say, neither of these verses are specific or clear as to the necessity of having a "sent one" from God to teach you the Bible. The cult leader you to believe that an apostle is necessary so that it will increase his chances of you following him.
But if you want to learn the Bible with a truly deep understanding, then whether or not you believe that an apostle or a God-approved teacher is needed, any teacher that teaches must be qualified to do so. There's really no getting around that one. If you are a student, the teacher needs to know the subject better than you, and they need to be able to impose that knowledge. So while a 4th Watcher might assert that a teacher must be sent by God, we're sure that they would agree that such a teacher must be qualified to teach.
So then the next natural question to ask is what are the qualifications that a teacher must have in order to teach? First of all, remember that you learn not only from one teacher, but often from many. It is unreasonable to expect one person to know everything you are trying to learn. It is through the combination of all of these teachers with all of their knowledge that one becomes an expert, and obtains the qualifications needed to teach others. For instance, if you wanted to be a physicist, you are not going to learn from one teacher who knows and understands physics. You will learn under several teachers, including other physicists, and even mathematicians, chemists, and other scientists. Most persons will never learn everything that any of these teachers know, but the goal is to learn as much that is necessary in order to benefit from the knowledge you set out to learn. Everyone learns what they can and then they go on to pass that knowledge along to others. This is how education works. So no one teacher needs all of these qualifications, but all of these qualifications are needed when you combine the teachers that are teaching. So what are these qualifications?
First of all, teachers must know and understand the original languages used in the Bible. These original languages are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Further more, they must understand these languages fluently. Why is all of this necessary? Because when translating the Bible into other languages, what is translated can be different from its original texts, and the original intent and meaning can be lost. Translation issues are often a problem when it comes to literary works and have always been a huge problem for the Bible. This is mainly because the Bible is so big and already complex and cryptic to begin with, but also, because so many place such high importance on understanding it, knowing the original intent and meaning is even more critical. Because of this, teachers need to understand the Bible in its original languages. Not knowing the original languages means not knowing the original intent and meaning of the Bible. It's as simple as that.
But knowing the original languages isn't always enough. You also have to understand how such languages and the culture that uses them change over time. Expressions, metaphors, and complete word transitions are natural in the evolution of language and culture. One thing said a thousand years ago could mean a completely different thing today, even if every single word is the same. Such a statement could now be used as an expression or a metaphor, or perhaps the words used in the statement have changed in meaning, and their original meaning is rendered obsolete. The teachers have to know and understand these concepts as well.
This is part of the reason why qualified teachers are also historians. A great deal of history must be known to an expert of the Bible, and not just within the Bible itself. This is because knowing and understanding the history of the world in places not mentioned in the Bible and outside the Bible will help such persons understand it even more, which could include verifying the Bible as accurate, or verifying it as inaccurate. True wisdom tells us that if you truly want to learn the Bible, you must not only learn the Bible, but that which is not found in the Bible as well.
And if someone truly wants to learn the Bible and teach it to others, they must have an expert understanding of science. They must know and understand what evidence is and how to use it to make decisions about what the Bible actually means. Unfortunately, religion and science are often treated as opposites, as Christianity pretty much goes against everything that science is. For this reason alone, it is difficult for an actual Christian who claims to be an expert on teaching the Bible to actually be an expert. It's pretty difficult to teach the Bible as a Christian when you have to know and understand science while disbelieving in it. But of course, Christians don't see it that way.
But of course, in addition to everything that we talked about concerning the qualifications of a true teacher, the teacher must actually have an incredible amount of knowledge about the Bible itself. The teacher must know about and understand all of the most significant and basic events and characters in the Bible, as well as the meanings behind every verse. We do not expect for any teacher to have a complete Bible memorized in their head, but a true expert should be able to reference much of the Bible quickly and accurately.
If you are teaching the Bible, then it is the Bible and Christian religion that you are expected to know and understand. But if you're teaching these things with the belief that they are true and are with the purpose of bringing salvation to individuals, then it would be very important to study other holy books and their religions too. After all, if you believe in this superstitious stuff, then it is also possible for all of these other religions, like Islam, to be true as well. It would be horrible if you're teaching everyone how to avoid Hell, and yet you were teaching the wrong religion, which could make them end up in Hell after all. It would only be responsible to learn other religions to make sure you're teaching the right one. But not only that. Such a person teaching the Bible and Christianity in this manner should be prepared to answer questions from potential followers as to why other religions are not to be followed. A true apostle should be able to answer that and know the answer based on its studies of those religions. So if someone claims to be an apostle, they should be able to teach you much about the other religions too.
Now, even with having all of these qualifications, you must realize that no one is ever going to have a perfect understanding of the Bible. It just isn't practical. Further more, there are current mysteries of the Bible that even the experts have not yet been able to explain. What is important is that you learn the most fundamental parts. But then again, even these areas can be mysterious.
But there they are. If anyone is going to claim to be an expert teacher of the Bible, they must exhibit some of these qualifications and someone learning the Bible must learn from teachers who combined, exhibit all of these qualifications. Does any apostle have them? If not, they cannot be the kind of expert they claim to be, and thus cannot be the kind of teacher that they say that everyone needs.
Of course, unless you are a niave Christian cult member like a 4th Watcher, no one's going to just accept anybody as a teacher of the Bible just because they say they are qualified to do so. So if an apostle claims to be an appropriate teacher of the Bible, how can we know for sure if what they teach is true? Well the first thing that will help you know this is to look at their credentials. These are aspects that help to show that a teacher is qualified to teach. Ask; What school did they go to? Do they have any college degrees? Who did they study under? Did they learn from other masters? These are all questions to ask such potential "expert" teachers of the Bible.
Now all of these credentials are important, but they are not the most important aspects of a Biblical teacher. There are many Biblical experts who do not share these credentials, and there are some that do, and are still lousy in their teachings. Also, these persons who claim to be apostles might tell you that God qualified them, and that that is the only credential that they need. In many cases, their excuse is usually along the lines that God has told them everything about the Bible that they need to know, so when becoming such a teacher, they're allowed to skip things like receiving the necessary education by going to school, and learning the original languages and its surrounding history.
So how can we know for sure then if what these teachers are actually qualified? How do we know if they can really speak the original Biblical languages? And if they can't, how do we know that what they are teaching is accurate? How can we tell if their knowledge reflects their claim that God has qualified them?
Well of course the obvious thing to do is to test them. Whether or not they were educated or sent by God, in the end, an expert teacher on the Bible should have an impressive knowledge on that subject. Testing them will prove what knowledge they have, and will show whether or not they are worthy of being a teacher of the Bible at all.
When we go to school to learn, the teachers hired by the schools have these credentials and have the appropriate qualifications to teach. Granted, not all of them are good teachers, but the point is, we never just go to school and expect to be taught by someone without them first proving that they understand what it is they are teaching. Why would it be any different for an apostle? In fact, if salvation is so important to a Christian, doesn't that make it even more important for your Biblical teacher to be tested? Unfortunately, many are not; especially leaders of cults like the 4th Watch Apostle. In cults, such leaders are rarely tested and few persons ever question their leaders' knowledge.
And when they are tested, they are never challenged properly to exhibit their knowledge in a satisfactory way that would convince the average sane person that they are indeed worthy teachers. Church leaders are often tested by their own congregation which does not understand how to properly test its leaders, and which already believe its leaders to begin with. Further more, such leaders will use logical fallacies and lies to persuade rather than pass any such tests. Only those who are extremely naive would allow such tests to convince them that they are apostles. The only true tests worthy of recognizing their ability would incorporate the kind of testing which we will discuss here.
So what then is an appropriate way to test such possible teachers? Well that's simple. It should be no different than any other standard test. Apostolic candidates must answer many very difficult questions that have been constructed and already answered by qualified and successfully tested experts. What would the questions be like? Well a few examples would be as follows:
Properly speak or translate statements in the Bible from their original languages and with accuracy according to the culture at the time of the texts, demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, have considerate knowledge of previous religions which the Bible is often based on, such as Paganism, have considerable knowledge of Jewish culture, name every significant character and event in the Bible, state from memory the most significant passages in the Bible, and state the known authors for every book inside the Bible. Remember that even though the candidates might not understand an original language, they still need to understand what those original languages mean, but since they claim to get their knowledge from God, knowing what they mean should be of no issue. Expert teachers should also be up to debating other experts on Biblical issues. When talking about apostles, anyone sent by God shouldn't have too much trouble in this area, yet they often seem to.
Now, it is very unlikely that such persons who claim to be sent by God would ever past such tests or trials, or prove in any way that they're worthy of actually teaching the Bible. In truth, God does not talk to these persons, and none of them are going to be able to portray satisfactory knowledge without a proper education. Since most persons who claim to be apostles clearly do not have these qualifications, how then can they possibly consider themselves to be worthy of teaching the Bible?
As apostles are mostly scam-artists, they always have a way out, and if such apostles are unwilling to go through the proper trials of portraying their Biblical knowledge, or if they try and cannot successfully pass such trials, then their most likely response to this is to just brush off such tests and make the bold claim that apostles are above all of those other so-called "experts", and that apostles already know and understand more than everyone else does. Therefore, it isn't possible to use these "experts'" knowledge as appropriate testing material because such persons are not qualified to test the apostles. After all, their stance is that they were sent by God, so who are these other experts to question or test the apostles? No one can possibly have more knowledge than an apostle, is what they say. Again, normal persons are not fooled by such claims. These apostles forget that they still need to be tested in order to prove themselves. But unfortunately, the easily deceived do forget and believe what their apostles tell them.
If followers of apostles do not receive some sort of evidence that shows that they are worthy to teach, then such followers are relying on faith, which normal persons know is not a sufficient way to believe in anything. If someone was to argue that faith is a sufficient way, then anyone could believe in anything they wanted to and believe in any apostle they wanted to. If no evidence is necessary to back up your beliefs, and you hold them only due to your desire to believe in them, then what is to stop you from believing anything your emotions dictate to you? With such a philosophy, we could believe that God is a leprechaun who lives under an invisible rainbow in a magical valley in the Philippines, while Satan is a goblin who lives inside the feces of humans. So clearly, something must be done to show that an apostle is a worthy teacher. But if apostles claim that no one is to question their knowledge because they were sent by God, and know more than everyone else, then what is left to truly determine whether or not they are really fit to actually teach the Bible? At this point, the apostle must show that they were indeed sent by God.
|
|
Page 1
|
|
|
|
