Are you infallible?

One Fold ^ | December 10, 2013 | Brian Culliton

[RnMomof7]

It’s a question that requires little thought to answer; are you infallible? It ranks right up there with, “Are you God?” But to Catholic apologists the question is quite serious; that’s because they believe that there is a man on earth who, on the subject of faith and morals, is infallible; they call him, “holy father.” See, it does rank right up there with, “Are you God,” at least when coming from people who think their leader is equal with God on deciding issues of faith and morals.

According to Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, this question should cause Protestants to suddenly doubt everything they believe, and Catholics should take comfort in knowing they and only they, have an infallible leader here on earth. But how can they know? Is there one Catholic person out there, besides the pope of course, who will confess to being infallible? And if a Catholic is not infallible, how can he or she “know” their pope is infallible? They can’t! So if they cannot infallibly declare their pope to be infallible, then their assertion is nothing more than a fallible opinion. And if they are wrong, which my fallible counter-assertion says they are, then they are being deceived.

The logic that so often accompanies claims of papal infallibility goes something like this: “Jesus did not leave His people vulnerable to the doctrinal whims of competing leaders.”

The logic used is quite revealing; it indicates very strongly that those who use it have no idea what it means to have the gift of the Holy Spirit, because if they had the gift of the Holy Spirit they would not be looking to Rome for infallible direction. It also reveals that they think everyone else is like them, wanting to follow the whims of their leaders. It also denies the notion that Christ has relationship with man through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Their magisterium reserves that privilege for themselves and people buy into it. It’s no different than Mormons following their prophet in Utah.

The pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Apostle Paul explicitly said that Christ is the head of His Church and He reconciles all things to Himself. To wit, Catholics will be quick to agree that Christ is the head, but then immediately contradict themselves by saying, “but He established the papacy through which He reveals His truths .” Based on what? If Christ is the head and we are the body, where does the papacy fit in? I see no evidence of this claim in Scripture or history, so if the evidence is not there the papacy must belong to a different body; one that is not associated with Christ and His church.

In his newsletter on his website where he shares chapter one of his new book, “Blue Collar Apologetics,” John Martignoni instructs his faithful followers to establish the fact that Protestants are not infallible early on in discussions with them. The purpose of doing this is to attempt to convince the Protestant that he could be wrong about what he believes. The funny thing is Martignoni never tells his readers what to do if the Protestant turns the question back on them; and that is most certainly what is likely to happen.

Does Martignoni really not see this coming, or is he simply at a loss for how to address it? Once a Catholic apologist is faced with admitting their own fallibility, they will immediately be forced to deal with the realization that their claim of papal infallibility is itself a fallible opinion; so they must, therefore, admit that they could be wrong as well. And once they realize the playing field is level, the evidence will do the talking.

A Catholic apologist who is willing to concede that his belief regarding papal infallibility is nothing more than a fallible opinion will likely ask another similar question, “What church do you belong to and how old is it?” In their minds this is the true “gotcha” question. They believe, in their fallible opinions of course, that they belong to the church founded by Christ nearly 2000 years ago. But the fact is, and yes it is a fact, there was no Roman Catholic Church 2000 years ago; it took a few hundred years for that to develop. Furthermore, by their own admission, the doctrines they hold equal in authority to the Bible, which they call “sacred traditions,” did not exist at the time of the apostles; that also is a fact.

There is something, however, that is clearly older than any Protestant or Roman Catholic Church and that is the written books of the Bible. If a person bases his or her faith on these written works then no supposed authority that came later can undermine the power of God working through them. It is unfortunate that when a person comes to Christ in faith through reading the Bible, that there are so-called Christians who come along to cast doubt in their minds. For example, in a tract on the Catholic Answers website called, “By What Authority,” it is stated, “In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers.”

Not according to the Apostle John who explicitly wrote, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”? He did not say these are written because you believe; he said, these are written that you may believe. John’s gospel is a firsthand written testimony of the ministry of Jesus for the purpose of bringing people to Him, and Catholic apologists are telling us it was never John’s intention for us to become believers by reading it? Amazing; isn’t it? The Catholic Answers philosophy seems to be to make up facts rather than face them.

So for the sake of the next John Martignoni disciple who wants to ask me if I am infallible, the answer is no; and incidentally your answer to my identical question is also no. Thus I am not interested in your fallible opinion that your pope is infallible when speaking on faith and morals. Perhaps one of you can go tell Mr. Martignoni that chapter his one is incomplete, and that he might want to consider adding a realistic response to his question rather than a bunch of scenarios where the Protestant is simply dumbfounded. His current scenarios might have been fun for him to write, but they are only going to embarrass his readers when they go out armed with the Martignoni sword.

[paladinan]

Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again...

...born "anothen" (which can mean "again", or "from above")--Jesus obviously meant the latter, since He chides Nicodemus for assuming that it meant the former.

Jesus says he must be born of water and of the Spirit...

Right. So nah...We certainly know it isn't referring to baptism since born and water do not mean baptism...

Aside from raw opinion, why would you say that? I've yet to see even a beginning of a proof for that claim... and please do look at my previous post, re: your confusion about the words, and my use of them.

So it refers to something else...

That doesn't follow, at all.

Jesus is talking about two births...One of water and one of Spirit...

I see nothing in the text which requires that, much less proves that. Baptism is the way by which one is born "of water and the Spirit" in one and the same instance... and you've shown nothing to counter that idea, at all.

Nicodemus understands the first birth (water) to be a normal, human birth...And so do I...

Did you miss the fact that Jesus didn't APPROVE of that answer?

[Mark17]

. I accepted Christ as a child and was baptized in a farm pond! Every Protestant church I have attended, practiced that belief. When I go by that pond on the way to my family in MS, I remember that day.

I was baptized in the swimming pool at Bien Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam in 1970. All it did, was get me wet. It was an outward sign of an inward commitment to the Christ of the Bible. I remember it was really hot that day, as was EVERY day in Vietnam, so a dip in the pool was welcome for me. I must have worked a million airplanes over there. It was one of the world's busiest airports, and I hacked the program. I worked so many airplanes, there still might be one or two out there in the weeds that I don't know about. It was a virtual nightmare.

[MHGinTN]

Sometime Freerepublic is the schoolhouse rockin’ ... some of these posts are so precious as to be printed off and kept for reference materials! Got this one just today.

[FourtySeven]

The conclusion of syllogism two is rejected, because while logically sound, it does not consider all possible premises. Consider:

Syllogism 2a) Assert the following to be false:

P1: Jesus was/is God
P2: It was possible to learn from Jesus while He was on Earth if the people then accepted His authority to teach.
P3: Jesus taught the people of Israel (as well as others) while on Earth infallibly about Himself.

Therefore: It was possible for the people of Israel (and others) to know Jesus is God if they accepted Him as an authority on God.

The point is, that Premise 1 from both Syllogism 1 and 2 is agreed to be faulty, but not because of the logic in Syllogism 1. It is rejected because it is a strawman argument. The Church does not teach that an infallible Magesterium is “required” or “necessary” to know the things of God, because the Church does teach that “nothing is impossible with God” and thus He can save as He wills. Also, obviously before Christ, there was no “infallible Magesterium” but the Church does teach that there are Saints in heaven from the Old Testsment.

Again, the Church teaches that God is not bound to the Magesterium, just as He isn’t bound to the Sacraments, but that He has chosen both as the normative means of Salvation.

Thus premise 1 is rejected for being a strawman argument and thus, any conclusions based on such faulty premises are the result of the same poisonous fruit, so to speak.

[editor-surveyor]

But he has not get given that eternal life.

As he explained to Nicodemus it can only come in a new, immortal body.

As usual, you appear to be trying to make a specific condition out of a generality.

Yeshua himself said in Matthew 24 that only those that endure to the end shall be saved. So while no one can pluck us out of his hand, we are free to leave his hand by our own volition. Paul and Peter explained this fact in great detail in Hebrews 6, and 2Peter 2.

It just requires a less tendentious mode of reading, so that one gets God’s meaning rather than one’s own desire.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “...born “anothen” (which can mean “again”, or “from above”)—Jesus obviously meant the latter, since He chides Nicodemus for assuming that it meant the former” <<

NEGATORY!

One must take meaning from context, and in this case context demolishes your deception: Nicodemus’ question whether he had to return to his mother’s womb strongly demonstrated that it was “Again,” not from above.

[MHGinTN]

Brother, I would guess every time the Gospel is heard, satan sends his little whispers to convey this exact doubt: "You might possibly be thinking that I believe I can get saved by faith and then live like Hell."

The corollary to that is his little nuance that Salvation must be forcing a believer to be a little Jesus on Earth, so oh how 'you' will miss all that fun stuff you now know.

And the accompanying corollary, if the seed is too good to ignore, 'Can I really be good enough to someday deserve that?'

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Did you have the coupon before you redeemed it?” <<

Unfortunately, there are no coupons with God.

As usual you offer the “wisdom” of men, which we have already been told is foolishness.
.

[xone]

The scripture says:

1- Jesus did alot of things not recorded.

2- Some of Jesus' acts and words were recorded in John.

3- The Holy Spirit testifies through John to the sufficiency of his account to lead man to Christ and to have eternal life as a result.

4- It follows that anyone who puts forth requirements for attaining eternal life that are absent from the Gospel of John is preaching another Gospel and is cursed.

[Springfield Reformer]

I wrote on this question of anothen a couple of times a while back.  Here is a slightly refurbished rehash of those comments:

Louw-Nida treats the expression "gennao anothen" ("born again") as a composite with idiomatic value, which may offer us a better way to understand how "anothen" could take on a specialized meaning when linked with "gennao" ("born").

41.53 γεννάω ἄνωθεν (an idiom, literally ‘to be born again’); παλιγγενεσίαa, ας f: to experience a complete change in one’s way of life to what it should be, with the implication of return to a former state or relation—‘to be born again, to experience new birth, rebirth.’
γεννάω ἄνωθεν: ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν ‘unless a person is born again’ Jn 3:3. It is also possible to understand ἄνωθεν in Jn 3:3 as meaning ‘from above’ or ‘from God’ (see 84.13), a literary parallel to the phrase ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν in Jn 1:13. In Jn 3:3, however, Nicodemus understood ἄνωθεν as meaning ‘again’ (see 67.55) and γεννάω as ‘physical birth’ (see 23.52).
παλιγγενεσίαa: διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως ‘new birth and new life by washing’ Tt 3:5. The metaphor of ‘new birth’ is so important in the NT that it should be retained if at all possible. In some languages ‘new birth’ can be expressed as ‘to cause to be born all over again’ or ‘to have a new life as though one were born a second time.’ See also 13.55.

So you see, sometimes this selection of alternate meanings can happen as a direct function of idiom, i.e., a secondary sense is promoted to a primary sense by appearing in partnership with another word. 

For example, a chip is an electronic circuit or a bit of chocolate or otherwise a small bit of some physical thing, unless it's on your shoulder, in which case it's a grudge.  Imagine trying to translate that from English back into Greek.  No native Greek reader would get it, because the idiom changes the meaning of "chip" so dramatically.

However, it is true "anothen" by itself can refer to some kind of "above-ness." But which one? Place, or Time.  From the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (IGEL):

ἄνωθεν, -θε, (ἄνω) Adv. of Place, from above, from on high, Hdt., Trag., etc.; ὕδατος ἄνωθεν γενομένου, i.e. rain, Thuc.: from the upper country, from inland, Id.
2. = ἄνω, above, on high, Trag.; οἱ ἄν. the living, opp. to οἱ κάτω, Aesch.:—c. gen., Hdt.

II. of Time, from the beginning, Plat., Dem.:—by descent, Theocr.; τὰ ἄν. first principles, Plat.
2. over again, anew, N.T.

This is something one has to respect when dealing with the Greek.  They have a very flexible way of reusing parts of speech in both temporal and spatial settings, and within those categories there can be a wide range between the concrete and the abstract.  In this case, as the IGEL entry demonstrates, "anothen" can be either spatial above-ness (simple "above"), or temporal above-ness, i.e., going back to Time Zero and starting over, from which we get the simplified "again."

In John 3, the conversational dynamic cannot be ignored in sorting this out.  Whatever Jesus meant by anothen (or its Hebrew or Aramaic spoken equivalent), Nicodemas didn't pick up on the spatial meaning "above" at all.  He is clearly thinking of a temporal reset, but it is degenerate from what is meant by "born again," because, as an idiom, and especially among evangelicals, it implies both the temporal and spatial aspects, i.e., being born again is both from above and a second birth event. Therefore it seems likely it was something of a double meaning, where Nicodemas got derailed by taking it in a strictly temporal, and strictly materialistic, sense.  Jesus then had to rebuke Him for his lack of insight into the Old Testament teaching on the spiritual aspects of the new birth, which Jesus unfolds as birth by water and by "pneuma" (spirit or wind), and as the following passages testify, Nicodemas, as a teacher of Israel, should have associated those metaphors with their prophetic counterparts, of which the following are only a small sample:

Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
(Isaiah 44:2-4)

... which makes clear that water can represent God's Spirit, applied to thirst, not clean skin, or it can be God's blessing, the source of nutrients that make living things grow, etc.  

Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
(Ezekiel 37:9-10)

... which makes clear that "pneuma" can be representative of God, by His breath, bringing new life into the world, as the new birth does.

Still, whether Jesus was holding Nicodemas accountable to know about these specific passages or other similar passages I cannot say.  There are other possibilities.  For example:

Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
(Ezekiel 36:22-28)

(hat tip to redleghunter for finding this)

... which is a wonderful passage because it directly associates water as a metaphor for cleansing from sin with the change of heart and the giving of God's spirit, which is precisely what evangelicals mean when they refer to the new birth.

But clearly, whatever it was Nicodemas missed, it was something Jesus considered obvious teaching of the OT, something no true teacher of Israel should have missed, concerning the new birth.  And no OT teacher taught or should have taught that physical water baptism was necessary either for salvation or even for true cleanness before God.  Remember how the Pharisees in Matthew 15 rebuked Jesus for letting his disciples ignore their ritual hand-washing, and Jesus shot right back that they were breaking God's law with their tradition of Corban?  Odd association, but clearly Jesus was far more concerned about their hypocrisy than he was about their man-made ritual washing requirements. Between that and the OT context, pulling ritual water baptism out of John 3:3-5 seems about the most unlikely conclusion possible.

Bottom line, all this is rather difficult to render in the English. English doesn't have a perfect replica of the dual-use "above/again" construct (at least that I can think of). So we have to pick one or the other and let the potential dual use come out in teaching the passage.  As the English idiom "born again" carries both meanings quite well, it is probably a superior translation choice in this case.  "Born anew" would be about as good.

Peace,

SR

[FourtySeven]

I don’t doubt that some Catholics are hypercritical of their non-Catholic Christian brethren with regards to the literal nature of Scripture.

The quote from my post to you (really a quote from a Catholic Answers forum thread) is not so hypercritical when viewed in the light of the specific topic being discussed which is: did God “dictate” word for word the Scriptures (which no one can deny is an accurate representation of what many Non-Catholics believe this thread alone is evidence of that).

As that post goes on to explain, there is another way to understand the word “dictate” (or dictation) which is to say a forceful yet not mechanical guidance of an entity or process. Like, as the poster said, Team X really dictated the pace of the game.

So in this sense there is no disagreement between Pope Leo XIII and paragraph 106 of the Catechism.

As a “note bene” you may want to note that Bible commentaries are not infallible teachings. You seem to note that almost in passing near the end of your post but I wanted to make that clear.

[paladinan]

It might be good to observe that in spite of Jewish claims to infallibility,

Where, exactly, do any Jewish authorities claim infallibility of any stripe (much less the specific type which is entrusted to the Catholic Church)? Chapter and verse, please, since you're "sola Scriptura" types...

and the identical claims of infallibility by the Roman church,

It might also be good to observe that this is what logicians call a "straw man"--a bogus caricature of an opponent's argument, used for the purpose of easy demolition. Not only do I not know where any Jewish authorities claimed "infallibility", but there's an absolute disconnect between your argument and the true definition of Magisterial infallibility (which can easily be found by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

the ecclesiastical branch has never been very good at maintaining pure doctrine - It has ever been the prophet who is raised up with the purpose of straightening them boys out.

Help me out, here. It sounds as if you're saying, "Jewish authorities = ecclesiastical branch [whatever that means]" and "Catholic Church = ecclesiastical branch", and you seem to be implying that--since the Jews erred in pure doctrine, and since the Catholic Church is somehow "the same", then the Catholic Church must have erred in pure doctrine. Is that truly what you're saying?

[editor-surveyor]

.
As has been explained before, Yeshua told us in Matthew 15:24 that the gentiles that he was sent for were the
“Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.”

Of course, those that know not the word of God, know not who are gentiles, and are trapped in Luciferian theology that tries to keep them confused.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Calling Matthias an apostle is calling God a liar!
.

[Springfield Reformer]

I appreciate your response, and I expected that after the original analysis it would become evident that any further attempts to derail Daniel’s logic would have to come from finding fault with something other than a supposedly defective middle term. Contesting the facts in each of the terms is the next logical place to go.

However, as this is Daniel’s logic we are parsing, it seems best to include him in this conversation, and I will defer any further analysis until he has had a chance to weigh in on your comments.

Peace,

SR

[Iscool]

So nah...We certainly know it isn't referring to baptism since born and water do not mean baptism...

Aside from raw opinion, why would you say that? I've yet to see even a beginning of a proof for that claim... and please do look at my previous post, re: your confusion about the words, and my use of them.

It is well established by the Greek texts as well as any dictionary in existence in the world that 'water' nor 'born' means baptism...You have admitted that yourself yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim you fail to see any proof for that claim...

Jesus is talking about two births...One of water and one of the Spirit...Count 'em...

I see nothing in the text which requires that, much less proves that. Baptism is the way by which one is born "of water and the Spirit" in one and the same instance... and you've shown nothing to counter that idea, at all.

The first reason is because of the word 'and'...Water AND the Spirit are two separate things...

Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again...

...born "anothen" (which can mean "again", or "from above")--Jesus obviously meant the latter, since He chides Nicodemus for assuming that it meant the former.

Oh brother!!!
So according to you, Jesus says to Nicodemus, 'You must be born from above'...And Nicodemus responds,
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

You don't need any bible study...You don't even need any common sense to get that...

Jesus says, you gotta be born from above and Nic says, How's my mother going to get pregnant and have me pop out of her womb, again????

There's no connection...No reason for Nicodemus to think Jesus was talking about a natural birth by saying the new birth was from above...

But by following the text, we can see that when Jesus said 'born again', it would be natural to assume Jesus was speaking of a natural birth, the second time...

I see nothing in the text which requires that, much less proves that. Baptism is the way by which one is born "of water and the Spirit" in one and the same instance... and you've shown nothing to counter that idea, at all.

Baptism is NOT being born of water...No one was ever born of water by being baptized in water...Only in the minds of Catholics, I guess...

[MHGinTN]

By refusing to see Scriptures teaching ‘dispensations’ one can con veniently reject the sound reasoning available by viewing to whom a passage is aimed, by whom, and for what period at issue. In refusing to see Scripture plainly teaches ‘dispensations’ by this they do err ...

[smvoice]

Are you certain you want to go there, editor? First,let's get it straight that Peter and the 11 were given the power, BY CHRIST, to bind and loosen on earth, and it would be bound or loosed in heaven. If you cannot see that, there is no point in continuing.

Please read and reread Acts, Chapter 1 until you get it straight about what was happening. Judas had killed himself, Peter and the now 10 had to replace him, Read verse 25. There HAD to be TWELVE Apostles on the day of Pentecost. WHY? Because Israel was going to be offered the KINGDOM and if they repented and accepted Christ as Messiah, HE would have returned AT THAT TIME to set up His Kingdom, and we KNOW from Matthew 19:28 that there will be TWELVE Apostles, sitting on TWELVE THRONES, with Christ, judging the TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL during the Millenial Reign.

I'll give you the MOST SIMPLE reason why Paul could NEVER have been one of the TWELVE: verses 21,22. He was NOT with Christ and the 11 "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." Get it?

Jesus Christ did NOT want Paul as the TWELFTH APOSTLE because Paul could NOT BE the TWELFTH APOSTLE. To make him the 12th would have made GOD a liar, since God is the one who made the 12 Apostle rule of verses 21,22.

Are you calling God a liar?

Peter and the 12 PRAYED about this choice, and ASKED GOD TO SHEW THEM WHETHER OF THESE TWO HE HAST CHOSEN." (Acts 1:24). Are you saying they didn't really pray about it, that they lied, or that God lied by really wanting Paul as the 12th, and being unhappy about the choice the 11 made, rushed Matthias off the scene as soon as Paul could be saved? Show me in Scripture where ANY of this resides. I've given you Scripture after Scripture showing you exactly what Acts says happened. Show me where it says something different. Or stop posting garbage.

And one more thing, just in case you are going to accuse me of lying that Israel was going to be offered the kingdom and Christ would have returned had they accepted Him as Messish, read Acts Chapter 2 again. Esp. v. 16,17,18,19,20,21. "THIS IS THAT spoken of by the prophet Joel." THIS is WHAT? THE LAST DAYS, v. 17. And what did Joel prophesy would happen in the last days? v. 17-20. And what would have been the grand finale of the signs, wonders, miracles? v. 20. THAT GREAT AND NOTABLE DAY OF THE LORD. When He returns and all Israel is saved. The Millenial Reign begins and well, you know the rest. ...I guess...

Now I'm sure you're wondering about the rest of the Bible: Paul and the Gentiles. That is the whole point of Paul's entire ministry: THE GENTILES. How WE could be saved and blessed when Israel was rejecting Christ and they were to be a nation of priests that would bring salvation to the Gentiles. Without this dispensation of grace, editor, we would be EXACTLY as Ephesians 2:11,12 describes us. THIS is why Paul was not one of the twelve. His commission was to the Gentiles, to bring the grace of God to us during this time of Israel's defiance and blindness.

[MHGinTN]

Ah, dispy-wisdom. Selah!

[paladinan]

Hi, S.R.! Good to see you, again!

Your definition of the "undistributed middle" (also known as the "fallacy of four terms", FWIW) is fine. I'll insert comments at the points where we start to disagree. You wrote, in describing Daniel's argument

Syllogism 1) Assert the following to be true:

P1: An infallible magisterium would not be in conflict with Jesus
P2: Israel's magisterium was in conflict with Jesus
Therefore: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium

No problems, so far.

Syllogism 2) Assert the following to be false:

P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God

Let me stop you, here. On the one hand, your analysis is correct: Syllogism 2 is valid (i.e. logically, the conclusion follows from the premises), but it's UNSOUND (i.e. a bad argument) because it started with a false premise--i.e. P1. Well and good, so far.

But: the suggestion that "an infallible Magisterium is necessary to know what is of God" has some problems which Daniel didn't address. First, the phrase "what is of God" is annoyingly vague, and it covers a great many species of items... some of which WOULD require an infallible Magisterium for certainty (e.g. which books are truly Sacred Scripture, and which are spurious), and some of which would NOT require such an authority (e.g. the existence of God, Himself--which can be known through pure reason, unaided by Divine Revelation).

To make matters worse, this definition doesn't make the needed distinction between absolute certainty (i.e. certainty beyond ALL doubt, which is required for a priori conclusions such as the Pythagorean Theorem) and MORAL certainty (which logicians and lawyers would call "certainty beyond REASONABLE doubt, where rejection of the conclusion would entail a violation of sane reason", which is the minimum requirement for a posteriori, sense-data-dependent conclusions such as determining whether the room contains any penguins, or not). In short: this premise is an absolute mess.

If you'll remember from logic, there are three things needed for an argument to be sound (i.e. valid and true): (a) clear definitions, (b) true premises, and (c) a conclusion which logically follows from the premises (i.e. no fallacies). "P1" fails on two counts: it's not sufficiently clear, and--as a general statement, it is false (though it's true for some subsets of "that which is from God").

If the argument progresses, while "limping along" with this inadequate definition, it's going to collapse. That's one key thing which flagged my attention.

P2: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium (see A above)

True enough.

Therefore: It was impossible for Israel to know if Jesus was of God

See above; there was no effort to parse out the subsets of "that which is of God" (much less to place "knowledge that Jesus was of God"--which is vague in its own right, since ALL humans are "from God" in a looser sense), and so there's no clear way to reach any certain conclusion.

Syllogism 3) Assert the following to be false, because it uses the same faulty premise as Syllogism 2

P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God

See above; this is far too murky and insecure to use, at all.

P2: Only Catholicism possesses an infallible magisterium

Therefore: Only Catholicism provides what is necessary to know what is of God

Again, see above.

BTW, it should be pointed out that P2 in Syllogism 3 above is radically flawed as well. Catholicism's claim to an infallible magisterium is unconvincing:

Just as a side note: "unconvincing" and "flawed" are not equivalent. I've run into many people who were "unconvinced" even of a priori truths which were proven beyond all doubt. "Convincing", unfortunately, is a process which usually has to wade through the recipient's EMOTIONS, as well as their reason, to attain its end.

1. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was ever created.

It depends on what you mean by "demonstrated"; how strict are your standards? Are you expecting a mathematical, airtight proof? Then no, it cannot be demonstrated... but neither can it be demonstrated mathematically that Jesus ever walked the Earth at all. Are you expecting a proof beyond all reasonable doubt? If so, then I submit for your consideration the fact that this has been proven, over and over again, in hundreds of venues. If you're really ambitious, try to locate the book, "Christianity and Infallibility: Both or Neither", by Fr. Daniel Lyons. (It's out of print, but inter-library loan should be able to find it.)

By the way: is a demonstration from SCRIPTURE the ONLY type of demonstration you'd find convincing? I don't see why, since "sola Scriptura" is a self-contradictory, invalid bit of nonsense which deserves no allegiance from anyone.

I'd also add: St. Peter, who was the rock on whom Christ built His Church (with the promise that the gates of Hades would not prevail against Her), was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven--with an unquestioned power to bind and loose. Compare this to Isaiah 22, and it makes an unmistakable connection: St. Peter is the "prime minister" (al ba'it) of the King of Kings, who is empowered to speak and act with the King's authority. (The others of the Twelve were also given the power to "bind and loose"--cf. Matthew 18:18--though they were not given the keys, and their authority was therefore contingent upon union with St. Peter.) Jesus also said to the Twelve that "he who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16); the Holy Spirit (through St. Paul) calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), and those who spurn the voice of the Church are to be treated as the heathen or tax collector (cf. Matthew 18:17). The early Church fathers were unanimous in their acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome as being identified with Peter, and having his authority. Church history holds this idea to be absolutely unquestioned by all Church authorities, Fathers, and doctors of the Church, at least until the terrible schism between East and West (at roughly the turn of the millenium) approached.

Beyond this (which I cut very short, for the sake of time), common sense requires that God should have permitted us an infallible interpreter of His Revelation, lest the sinful and darkened intellect of man distort that Revelation beyond recognition. As Fr. Lyons says (and I paraphrase): "To presume that our God did not provide a secure, living, immortal, and accessible authority Who could preserve both His Revelation and the teachings dependent upon it from error and deceit, is to presume that God is indifferent to the damnation of the vast majority of His children." If Revelation is necessary for salvation, and if there is no certain way to know the contents of revelation, then there is no certain way to attain salvation.

2. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was perpetuated past the apostolic age.

How about the fact that St. Peter and the other Apostles felt compelled to replace Judas Iscariot? Even more compelling are the reasons they cite: "Let another take his office" (Acts 1:20, citing Psalm 109:8). Why? Why not leave only 11 Apostles? Apparently, there were reasons (I'd argue that the Apostles needed to represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel, among other things) for keeping the "office" alive, even when an officeholder had vacated (through death, etc.). This is strengthened by the fact that St. Paul talks repeatedly about ordaining more bishops (episkopoi) and priests (presbyteroi), and the fact that all of Church history has not only acknowledged, but EXPECTED, that the Apostolic succession must continue. If nothing else, Jesus requires it when He commands them to "make disciples of all nations" (which could hardly have been done in the lifetime of the Apostles). For those who suggest that Apostolic authority died with the Apostles, I'm afraid history and Scripture are against them.

3. It cannot be demonstrated from primary historical sources that any consolidated, unified magisterium, fallible or infallible, ever existed in Rome under one bishop until nearly the end of the Second Century.

What do you mean by "primary" historical sources? Do you require that the original manuscripts still be in existence? And what sort of "consolidated" Magisterium would flag your attention? St. Peter was undeniably the head of the Apostles; even a cursory examination of the Scriptures (to say nothing of early Church history) would show that plainly; but would that satisfy your definition of "consolidated Magisterium"? I do wonder if some definitions might not weed out legitimate evidence, simply because the conclusions are not pleasing to the viewers...

4. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can fall into catastrophic error.

You'd have to be much more specific than that--both with examples, and with explanations as to what TYPE of error. Was it error in doctrine? Error in personal behavior? Error in matters of faith and morals? Errors in matters not related to those? (And on what basis do you use the word "catastrophic"? It's a very dramatic-sounding word... but it can also be abused.)

5. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can be sent reformers from God for the purpose of correcting its catastrophic error.

I'll take a guess, here, and say that you may be thinking of Galatians 2:11-14? If so, you'll have to explain what genus the "error" was (e.g. doctrinal, behavioral, etc.), and why you attach the word "catastrophic" to it (aside, perhaps, from emotional emphasis).

More later; must dash!