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

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent. This is a massive topic with undeniably important stakes, not taken on lightly. Whatever the results I am thankful for the opportunity to attempt to make my case. I only pray that any lack of skill, experience, or persuasion I have in the art of debating not reflect poorly upon the Church. Throughout, Con has tried to change what this debate is about. This is not a debate about who has the correct interpretation of Scripture. I would gladly take on this argument with him in a separate debate focused on a particular topic, but I did not feel the need nor have the time to address each one of his objections to Orthodox interpretation. Con says that my summation of his main argument being that there is no such thing as a 'visible Church' is a "straw man", but then goes on to tell me in his rebuttal that there is no such thing as a visible Church. I am not sure what to make of this. In his attempt to drive this point home, he cites Scripture which was produced and edited together by members of this same Church which he says is merely a 'man-made tradition'. He insinuates that St. Athanasius was a heretic. The same St. Athanasius who was absolutely instrumental in assembling the Scripture he holds to be the source of his beliefs. From a protestant source:"There is no question that the emphasis on the exclusiveness and finality of the canon is closely connected with Athanasius' total theological conception, anti-heretical and Bible-related. Over and above that it has to be observed that precisely in the years after 362, his concern was directed towards the unity of the 'orthodox' Church, and hence that for him a uniform canon was also a necessity." [1] From an Anglican source:"One Easter Letter (or Paschal Letter) of Athanasius is well known for giving a list of the books that ought to be considered part of the canonical Scriptures, with a supplementary list of books suitable for devotional reading. For the New Testament, he lists the 27 books that are recognized today." [2]Con evidently believes the Bible was assembled by the Holy Spirit acting through men (to which I wholeheartedly agree), but he denounces one of the same principal men involved in this process as a heretic. I wish I could spend more time on this point, as I believe it is crucial, but I believe I have made the important point here as far as I am able.Con says "the Church was established by the mouth of Christ" (which I agree with), but then says that Scripture alone is necessary for salvation, even though Scripture itself nowhere says that it alone is sufficient for that. Jesus never commanded that his teachings be committed to a book, even less for us to use this book as a source for everything we need to know for salvation. If this was as important as Con and other adherents of sola Scripture believe it is, why would he never have mentioned this? Again and again, Jesus is recorded as teaching orally, only once writing anything, and that in sand, a symbol for the medium which you may interpret as you will. In fact, we even know that Christ taught things to his apostles which were not recorded: "But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables." - Mark 4:10-11 This is not to say Christ had 'secret teachings', but that he saw the important of being discerning in whom to reveal what to, he did not 'cast his pearls before swine'.And in Scripture there numerous mentions of the importance and place for oral transmission, be it in 2 Tim. 1:13 (oral authority did not die with the apostles - St. Paul was not one), Titus 1:3 (God's word is manifest through preaching), Luke 10:16 (He who hears you hears Me), Rom. 10:17 (faith comes through hearing), 2 John 1:12 (John prefers speaking over writing), and many, many more [3] - perhaps most strikingly in Isa. 59:21:“As for Me,” says the Lord, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the Lord, “from this time and forevermore.” Which brings us to the importance of apostolic succession. What does it mean that Christ built his Church upon the faith of one of his apostles?"Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” - Matt. 16:17-19In the west in the Middle Ages, popes were often chosen by secular rulers based on political needs. This never happened in the east. We can draw a straight line from current bishops, selected from within the Church, to Peter and Christ himself - and we acknowledge Christ as the sole head of the Church, not any human being. All authority within the Church comes from Christ, and is only wielded with consensus throughout the Church in the form of Ecumenical Councils, which by anyones standards, are utilized extremely sparingly on a strictly 'as needed' basis (the last Ecumenical Council in the Orthodox Church was nearly 700 years ago!) [4]. Jesus laid the groundwork for apostolic succession by choosing them himself, and bestowing upon them the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This does not mean bishops (or apostles) are infallible and must be followed regardless of where they are leading people. This does not mean we follow the 'tradition of men'. This does not mean men are the head of the Church. Again, we are brought back to the idea of consensus within the Church. If a bishop is corrupt, he is shunned by the faithful and excommunicated from the Church. Bishops are in fact held to a much higher standard precisely because of the position they are in. As St. Athanasius himself said, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!" [5]Having made the argument against the idea of a purely 'invisible Church' (despite his trying to reframe his argument in regard to these terms), the only point left in Cons argument is his version of what happened during the Great East-West Schism.Con says, "The same way that the South became its own national entity after withdrawing from the United States, so did the EOC become its own doctrinal entity after the schism in 1054."I think this is a very poor analogy which avoids answering the question I posed. This comes back I suppose to Con's definition of Church. So we are back where we started.Con takes issue with me saying 'visible Church' because he does not believe an institution has anything to do with "the Church" as he defines it. To cede to his problem with this terminology, I invite him to insert "institution" wherever I used the phrase "visible Church" and move past this issue of semantics and address the points I was getting at, which I have seen few of thus far.I want to thank anyone who took the time to read all of this and to remind you before you vote that this was a debate on a specific subject, not a 'my theology vs. your theology' debate. Voting Pro does not necessarily mean you think Orthodox theology is 100% right. I hope to have more of these in the future on more specific topics so we can actually make some headway in understanding them and not be bothered by long tangents which do not affect the proposition of the debate. [1] http://www.ntcanon.org...[2] http://justus.anglican.org...[3] http://scripturecatholic.com...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...; [5] http://www.dailycatholic.org...;