Did Mikey go back in time with his KJV and start the New Testament Church? Maybe! But we still demand he PROVE IT!
I've seen tons of mental backflips and subterfuge over the years from Mikey, but this last one is so choice it takes the proverbial cake! We've already seen in earlier blogs how he sweeps under the rug the issues of contradictions in his KJV, and its errors (by altering the language and what the meaning of "is" is) and now he brings this in spades to try to worm his way out of how we pinned him down in earlier comments to do with the Gnostic Gospels and Q tradition, both of which he pilloried as being of "Satanic Origin".
Recall that when held down in terms of our scrutiny (of his inept parsing of the Gnostic texts) he replied by writing:
"The early church councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?"
Note first of all, and this is crucial (in order to hoist him on this petard) he doesn't simply refer to the "early Church" but early Church COUNCILS!
In other words, he concedes that the explication of what constitutes authenticity for scriptures occurred in the context of specific meetings or COUNCILS! We know from history what these were, at least all Catholics who were ever born (even ex-) but for those who don't the listing of the Councils is given here:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm
Now, bearing all this in mind (and specifically the reference to EARLY CHURCH COUNCILS) let us behold what this obfuscator scribbles on his last blog:
"The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the NT, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church."
Of course, even leaving out the circular argument in the last line, this is bollocks! The New Testament is not a "church" but a book, specifically a book covering a certain content which developed and evolved over much time (using textual and historical analysis) to include the canonical gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and other materials, and assorted Epistles, e.g. of Paul to the Romans. Thus, the New Testament didn't appear magically in one complete form, but actually took CENTURIES before the final recognized version emerged. Hence, it's absolute brazen bollocks to claim a "New Testament Church" predicated on the NT, would have been available even before Constantine issued his Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. No way and no how! (On edit: it appears Mikey didn't invent this asinine confection but it is now a widespread evangelical meme - which can be ascertained via googling. The little bastards just can't accept they weren't the first church or religion so have resorted to inventing a pile of cocklemamey hogswill to try to get stupid people to buy into it. ).
A "Church" by contrast alludes or defines a stable organization of people sharing the same faith, who meet at regular intervals to worship and also celebrate that faith. They may use or reference a particular book, or they may not. A book is not essential, but a shared faith and ritual are.
THE ONLY KNOWN Church in existence at the time of the textual analysis and sorting of the early scriptures (from 40- 250 AD) was the HOLY CATHOLIC Church! This is a historical fact and no one in his or her right mind denies it, unless they have been popping too many happy pills, mayhap with excess booze. I do not make inferences here, only point to the loss of reality required to deny the Catholic Church was the earliest Church. (Nor do I come here to "defend" the Catholic Church - but rather to take down a know-nothing imp who has really gone overboard with his fake knowledge and dubious history!)
True, in its early years the Catholic Church wasn't an official, formal institution (this didn't transpire until after the Edict Of Milan) but simialr to small, little known sects today, there were regular meetings - often in Rome catacombs. Thus, it was only the CATHOLIC Church that existed in an original amorphous form then later as an organized hierarchy, holding regular councils which scrutinized every aspect of the faith, including the authenticity and inspiration in the scriptures. We know this sticks in Mike's craw, and eats him alive, but that is no excuse to run amok and invent things out of the blue to try to rescue an argument doomed from its inception.
Now, to further pin Mikey's ears back, we must demand of him to show us a link - any link - for the FIRST COUNCIL of his "New Testament" Church. The one in which his four principles are spelled out. What are they, Mikey? Name just one Council for your "New Testament" Church and the year(s) it was convened! Oh, please do give us the city and country too!
He can't because he's full of horse shit and he knows it. His evangelical ilk dreamed this baloney and he's endorsed it up because he's been pinned back on the issue of the Early Church and has nowhere else to go but in his imagination. No evangelical church or religion existed so he's copelled to make up "the New Testament Church". (Oh, and another howler in his blog is that we must give up the notion of "denominations" because that leads us to wrongly categorize! Fine, then if that's the case there's no separation between Baptists and Catholics! More Bollocks!)
Undeterred he goes on with more baloney:
"On this basis, let’s examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Can they ( the RCC ) show us ANYWHERE Scripture - GOD'S WORD ( that they allege to follow ) , the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles? NO , THE RCC CANNOT !! All of these are core elements of the RCC faith."
This is a ridiculous attack and critique for several reasons, including:
1) "God's word" was never fully available but was only being piece meal worked out (from about 40 AD - 200 AD as I showed in earlier blogs). But we know Peter conferred his authority onward and that the Jesus Seminar essentially validated Christ's injunction regarding "Thou are Peter and Upon this Rock I shall build my Church". No break in apostolic succession occurred before or since, and hence - like it or not, that succession is passed on to Benedict today.
2) Contrary to Mikey's myths, "Maryology" and "praying to Saints" has never been part of Catholic core doctrine- meaning if one doesn't involve himself he pays a grave penalty. Both are tolerated because the Catholic hierarchy - as one Jesuit put it to me at Loyola- saw it as "harmless devotional fare" which kept people invested in their faith. Indeed, different regions have different saints they embrace and what this does is contribute or add a kind of reality or realism to their beliefs. Truth be told it's no more idolatrous than Mikey's worship of his KJV. (And most of those who pay homage to saints don't take their statues to bed every night and sleep with them under their pillows!)
3) Submission to the Pope is not final by any means because the pontiff may speak out of two formal official Papal media: from the Magisteria (teaching office) or ex Cathedra.
When he speaks out of the former no one is compelled to accept his ruling or advice or submit to any teaching. It is only when the Pope speaks ex Cathedra that his speech or injunctions bear the imprint of infallibility. (And by the way, this doctrine was only implemented from ca. 1859, so I also have serious problems with its authenticity and did even before I broke away from the Church ca. 1977).
Theologian Hans Kung's book 'Infallible?' give the best takedown yet of the infallibility doctrine and makes an excellent case for rejecting it. However, even he acknowledges that such rejection doesn't mean the entire Church (religion) is inauthentic or the papacy, only that this doctrine doesn't fit within the milieu of the Body of Christ as represented by it. While I'm on the topic of doctrines, one of those of the early Church was the belief in Limbo, as an abode for infants who died before being baptized. The Church rightly reasoned it was cruel to consign such infants to "Hell" so opted for Limbo. THIS is why infant baptism was instituted, in order to ensure as many infants as possible had the chance for eternal life, rather than the nether region of Limbo.
Lastly, Mikey blubbers:
"If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were NOT practiced by the NT Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the RCC be the "first church"? A study of the NT will clearly reveal that the RCC is NOT the same church as the church that is described in the NT. "
Again, Mikey's language and verbal tricks won't wash. There is no "New Testament Church" and never was. This is a phantom copied from pie-eyed jeaolous evangelicals, aware that historically they evolved out of Protestantism and weren't anywhere around at the time of JC or just after. While we can accept and tolerate some leeway for historical and language freelancing, this goes beyond the pale because it introduces into early history something that never was, never existed. It is a projection of Mikey's desperation because he got his ears pinned back on the issue of appealing to "early Church Councils" to try and support his 4 scripture principles.
What we do here is invite this blowhard to provide us with prima facie historical evidence that:
1) A New Testament church actually existed, and name at least five members of this Church and how they contributed
2) Name at least two Councils held by this church which are historically supported.
My bet is he will punk out (or resort to more verbal baloney and backflips), just like he did on the exegesis test!
No comments:
Post a Comment