The Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD

Very few of the points in the previous post have anything to do with refuting the claim made in the title of the debate, so I will only address those, because we only have two rounds left and still have barely even discussed the subject matter at hand. You say, "There is no such thing as a reformed church nor is there such a thing as an Eastern Orthodox Church. Instead, it's the church that views scripture through reformed doctrine or the Church that views scripture through EOC doctrine." It seems your main argument is that there is no such thing as a visible church. Let us assume this is true for a moment and apply it to a different setting in time. Let's go all the way back to the beginning when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles. Was this a real, visible Church? Would it be necessary for all of the Apostles present to be saved for it to be a real, visible Church? Would this then mean that the Church ceased to be a real, visible Church when just one person joined who did not end up being saved? Would you be able to say when that happened?Going by your definition, this was just another group of men who viewed Scripture a certain way. But, we seem to have another problem here, as the NT was not even yet written. So were they a group of men who viewed the OT a certain way? Then what about the teachings of Christ? How does your definition of church fit into this time period? Does the definition of church change with time?The apostles had to write these texts, not interpret them. They infact were writing down their interpretation of events they experienced. Simply put, your definition of what a church is is only one side of the coin, which is clearly demonstrated in applying it to this setting. Infact, by your definition, no church could even have existed prior to the Synod of Hippo, nearly 400 years later. Are you saying no one was saved before the Bible was canonized? And by the way, who canonized the Bible? The Church that isn't real? Just some random guys who had a particular view of what Scripture should be? How can you be so averse to the idea of a true Church on one hand, and on the other, be absolutely convinced beyond a measure of a doubt that what this Church produced, assembled and canonized is true? Another point: if the Church is solely invisible, then what do you make of the following verse?"Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." 1 Tim 3:14-15 Was Paul saying here that he was going to tell people who were already saved how they should act? Or people 'in' heaven? Why would that be necessary? Why did Paul attach enough importance to the idea of a real, visible Church that he thought it was worth taking the time to tell people how to conduct themselves in it? Your definition of Church again does not hold up here.You say, "The Church is a body of true believers, so your burden rest in providing proof that every succession of the Apostles where truly saved persons."May I then ask what is your interpretation of these two parables?"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away." - Matt 13:47-52"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." - Matt 13:24-30The Church could not possibly have 'only caught the good fish', or 'only gathered the wheat' without accumulating the tares. As I stated in my initial post, the Church is not a salvation club. Membership does not equal salvation, nor does being outside the Church equal condemnation.The logic Con is using is very shaky on many fronts, let's look at it from another angle. You say, "Interestingly, the EOC recognized 153 Popes prior to the schism in 1054 AD." "The EOC was doctrinally established in 1054 AD." I don't know quite what to make of this disconnect, but I will have to assume it was a misstep and move on. You say the Eastern Orthodox Church was 'doctrinally established' in 1054 AD. Can you tell me what 'new doctrine' was introduced in 1054, by which the Church 'established' itself? I know of none. All that happened in 1054 is one Bishop excommunicated another, while practically every other Bishop from anywhere of note in the Christian world sided with the one who was excommunicated. [1] Going by a simple consensus in the Church then, this is not when the Eastern Orthodox Church was founded, but when the Roman Catholic Church was founded, and officially divided itself from the other major sees.It is worth noting that it was only 41 years later when the Catholic Church began the Crusades [2] - a series of 'holy wars', which would have never found a consensus throughout the rest of the Church. The trajectory here is fairly clear if you look at it objectively."Do you see that your understanding of the word “Church” would create “Two distinct bodies”?" Again, there is a massive disconnect here, as it is precisely your definition which assumes two bodies - one invisible and one visible, with no correlation whatsoever between the two, hence, distinct. While I have already supplied this quote, which denies there are two bodies:"While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say." - Bishop Kallistos WareHere is another:"Orthodox theology refuses to separate the ‘invisible’ and the ‘visible Church,’ and therefore it refuses to say that the Church is invisibly one but visibly divided. No: the Church is one, in the sense that here on earth there is a single, visible community which alone can claim to be the one true Church. The ‘undivided Church’ is not merely something that existed in the past, and which we hope will exist again in the future: it is something that exists here and now. Unity is one of the essential characteristics of the Church, and since the Church on earth, despite the sinfulness of its members, retains its essential characteristics, it remains and always will remain visibly one. There can be schisms from the Church, but no schisms within the Church. And while it is undeniably true that, on a purely human level, the Church’s life is grievously impoverished as a result of schisms, yet such schisms cannot affect the essential nature of the Church." [3]Con has stated the Orthodox Church was founded in 1054, which I have shown to be simply a historical bias viewed through a western lens.Con has also tried to argue that the only real Church is an invisible one, thus differentiating and making distinct two separate Churches. This does not hold up to either Scripture, or logic when applied to a different time period.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3] http://www.holy-trinity-church.org...;