The other "alternative" is a priori acceptance of it as "factual." Some people are willing to do so; I am not. If there is absolutely zero, zilch, evidence of historical Exodus (after 40 years of intense Israeli archeological search for traces of 600,000 men—and their families [unless the bible is giving incorrect numbers] roaming the Sinai for 40 years and finding nothing—but founing lots of evidence of Egyptian presence in the Sinai of that time period), then I may have some reservations about such a priori acceptance.
Obviously, St. Paul couldn't have known that, just as OT prophets didn't know that bats are not birds. The bible is not a historical and scientific encyclopedia.
Just as your verse says, Christ came for His sheep. You seem to be stuck on the notion that only Jews by birth can be sheep
Yeah, given that He specifically never spoke of preaching to the Gentiles and called them dogs. Given that He prohibited His disciples to preach to the Gentiles. Given that He picked twelve disciples, one for each tribe of Israel (Jews) and that His disciples, even after the resurrection, expected Him to simply restore the kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6), as the Jewish messiah is supposed to do.
We know, as a biblical fact, that the only reason the Gospels were taken to the Gentiles is because the Jews rejected them (Act 13:46). We also know that Jesus never told them that the Jews would reject them when He sent His disciples to preach to the Jews only.
You seem to be stuck on the notion that only Jews by birth can be sheep. The NT lays waste to that notion through Paul
Of course it does. Without Paul Christianity would be dead. He had to convince the Gentiles that this was their faith as well. But it was not what Christ taught in the Gospels. It was Paul's gospel. He had to dispense with a lot of "jewishness" in order achieve that. Which is why the rabbis at Jamnia finally condemned Christianity and Christianity was no longer a Jewish sect, but a whole new Gentile religion. The idea that we are "extended" Israel is a Christian construct. Christ never taught that Gentiles are "extended" Israel.
This quote was said BEFORE your alleged reorganization of Christianity to include Gentiles
John's Gospel was written sixty years after Christ, and represents a very different kind of Christology as compared to Paul's teaching or the synaptic Gospels.
Therefore, by your reasoning, Jesus only was talking about ALL lost Jews here. But we know that not all Jews followed Him, so this would make Jesus a liar
Jesus says He was sent for the lost sheep of Israel. It doesn't say all. He also said "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mat 26:27) and not for all (because not all would come to Him).
Isa 53:12
That's weak, FK. There is no reference to any messiah before the post-Babylonian books of the OT (Daniel, psalms, etc.), and nowehere in the OT does it say that God will "save" the Gentiles.
If anything the OT says that God's servant "will bring forth judgment to the nations." [Isa 42:1]
The other "alternative" is a priori acceptance of it as "factual." Some people are willing to do so; I am not. If there is absolutely zero, zilch, evidence of historical Exodus (after 40 years of intense Israeli archaeological search for traces of 600,000 men—and their families [unless the bible is giving incorrect numbers] roaming the Sinai for 40 years and finding nothing—but founing lots of evidence of Egyptian presence in the Sinai of that time period), then I may have some reservations about such a priori acceptance.
I have actually been wrestling with your consistent use of the term "a priori" and how to deal with it. So far, I have assumed that by that term you mean "just made up", as in "blind faith" based on nothing. I hope I have something new to add here.
I looked at several online dictionaries for the definition of "a priori" and one thought I believed to be in consensus was this: "not in accordance with previously established fact". Wow, for these purposes, that's pretty loaded. :)
Now, if you want to talk about the original Genesis story and say that it would be the same as if it said some other story that didn't violate other scripture, then one could make a case for "a priori" (assuming one threw out the literal nature of the later quotations from Genesis).
However, when the Bible speaks over and over again, from God's lips, about the sinful nature of man, and what form that actually takes, can you really put such things in the category of "a priori"? No, you can't because with regard to the nature of man himself, the Bible is PERFECTLY "in accordance with previously established fact". For example, is man today like this?:
Gal 5:19-21 : 19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Of course he is. Therefore, the totality of scripture is not "a priori". The Bible gives man the truth about himself flat out.
So, what about the faith part? The Bible speaks of ears to hear and eyes to see, and these must come from God. If the proof you are looking for cannot come from God (or be disqualified), then I suppose your view could fall under that which is not "in accordance with previously established fact". The OBVIOUS RED FLAG is that you are taking the position of a committed atheist! :) You are telling us that if I cannot show you an equation or a formula that proves God, then no one can assert Him as a FACT. This goes WAY WAY beyond strange bedfellows, Kosta. :)
Obviously, St. Paul couldn't have known that, just as OT prophets didn't know that bats are not birds. The bible is not a historical and scientific encyclopedia.
The Bible is many things including allegory, poetry, and parable. But in the vast majority of cases, those things are readily identified. None of these detract from the fact that the Bible absolutely IS a historical record of what actually happened. The SECOND we throw out the historicity of the Bible, then we have nothing left but to depend on men to tell us what to believe. God is de facto locked out of the equation because how could we trust Him if He either planted lies in His word or allowed men to plant them. Or, if He really never left us a "word" at all. All that is left is a faith in men.
When you say that "St. Paul couldn't have known that" you immediately delete the idea that the scriptures are God-breathed, and therefore are nothing more than earlier writings of individual Church Fathers which may or may not be correct. By definition, this would be a "low opinion of scriptures".
FK: "Just as your verse says, Christ came for His sheep. You seem to be stuck on the notion that only Jews by birth can be sheep."
Yeah, given that He specifically never spoke of preaching to the Gentiles and called them dogs. ...
Is it really your view that Christ thought of all Gentiles as dogs? Let's see what the scriptures say about the story you bring up:
Matt 15:21-28 : 21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs ." 27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
If your own passage doesn't show that Christ also came to save Gentiles then I don't know what does. Is your contention that Christ was surprised by this and made a one-time exception? Please! :) In Christ's own words it SHOWED that the "lost sheep of Israel" included Gentiles. That is, EXACTLY as Paul said, BTW.
We know, as a biblical fact, that the only reason the Gospels were taken to the Gentiles is because the Jews rejected them (Act 13:46).
Forgive me if this sounds like a cheap shot, but I didn't think you believed much in Biblical "facts". :) In any event, Acts 13:46 is a statement of PROCESS, not a declaration that God had failed and now we're going to do this ... (etc.) That is, unless you want to say that God failed, or that the Bible is wrong.
God intended what happened with the Jews all along, SO THAT the Gospels would then be preached to the Gentiles. The Bible says first to the Jew, and then ... I still can't comprehend the idea that God needed a "bailout" to save this Christianity thing that He started on earth. I mean, what sort of God is this inept?
Christ never taught that Gentiles are "extended" Israel.
Christ taught that He came to fulfill OT Law, and that not a single jot or tittle of that Law would pass away until He had completed His mission. Christ also included Gentiles within the body of those He ministered to. He performed miracles benefiting a few of them. Then He revealed Himself to Paul in miraculous fashion. I suppose we are left to speculate as to what sort of job Christ did in His revelation. Perhaps it was a really good job, or perhaps tons of holes were left, that sort of thing.
But hey, I just noticed something. The (negative) above would be in perfect keeping with Apostolic thought. Think about it, in Apostolic thinking Christ dying on the cross served as kind of a "nudge" to mankind. It made it possible for man to decide for himself whether to do good deeds and partake of the sacraments, etc. And from that result he would be saved or not. NOW, with Paul, the corollary would be that God gave Paul a "nudge", and that made it possible for him to come up with the correct writings, etc. And from that Paul got some stuff right, but he must have gotten some of it wrong too. So, with at least Paul's writings we sort of do the "best we can" as to truth, just the same as we do the best we can in doing enough good deeds to get saved, as Christ made possible by His sacrifice.
FK: "This quote was said BEFORE your alleged reorganization of Christianity to include Gentiles."
John's Gospel was written sixty years after Christ, and represents a very different kind of Christology as compared to Paul's teaching or the synaptic Gospels.
Kosta, you know me and my sneaky lawyer ways. :) So, I was very careful to say "This QUOTE was said BEFORE ..." The quotes of John 10 were SPOKEN in real life before the failure of the Jews to embrace Christianity (that you described). So, either my point (that John says that Christ's sheep never changed and were always given by the Father, including Gentiles) remains unaddressed, or John 10 has made up quotes.
Jesus says He was sent for the lost sheep of Israel. It doesn't say all.
Isn't this the IDENTICAL argument you are having with Harley over who are "those" in Mark 16, except now it's reversed? :) I do realize it can go both ways, but I just thought it was funny enough to bring up. :) It always goes back to context. If our observed experience does not match, then we can either declare the scripture wrong, or we can look for an interpretation consistent with the totality of scripture, i.e. that it is true and is God's revelation to us in conformity with 2 Tim. (at least). In addition, a belief that God's word is Holy is one of the presuppositions I have been talking about.
[continuing:] He also said "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mat 26:27) and not for all (because not all would come to Him).
Oh, come on! :) You know the arguments over "many". OK, how do you explain this:
Rom 5:15 : 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many !
I mean, what is the meat of your argument here? Were only SOME, but not all "affected" by Adam's sin? Was Christ sent to save some of the lost but not all, according to Apostolic theology? If He shows no favoritism then how were they selected? This falls apart so quickly....