Kosta: Speculating what went on beofre the books were written is just that speculation. Truth is, we don't know what was said before the books of the Gospels were written. But we do know that various Christian groups represneted a heterodox community of believers.
The Church only takes credit for recongizing and selecting that which was inspired, and rejecting that which was profane.
Well now, what have we learned? Of course we have learned that we must not accept a priori that anything in Scripture is correct, i.e. we must not accept the divinity of Scripture as a principle known outside of sense experience. Curiously, however, what seems to be implicitly stated is that the [Greek] Church is the a priori principle, that is, we must accept the proclomations of the [Greek] Church outside of experience. Of course, Kosta may have all kinds of data proving the infallibility of the [Greek] Church, since he would obviously reject any rationalist principle that the [Greek] Church grounds all truth, and has yet to prove it. Or, perhaps, Kosta is a subjectivist and the [Greek] Church is just one form of truth amongst an infinite number of truths, as all empiricists end up being subjectivists.
One final possiblity exists, it could be that Kosta is actually a mind in a vat being manipulated by an evil scientist and what he thinks is sense-experience is all an illusion. That'll be a tough one to prove false.
I am not in the habit of using expressions such as "must not"; if I did, it was inadvertant. But if you are exaggerating for effect, then beware that exaggerations do not earn you points. Stick to what is written without making things up and adding to something that is not yours to add to.
An a priori starting premise is just that: starting premise. It is assumed or known to be true; otherwise the whole project is meaningless. Our initial a prior premises determine our course of action.
If you start with the premise that there is a reasonable possibility that there is life on Mars, you will conduct experiments aimed at discovering life on Mars. The trick is to distinguish "realistic" or "probable" premises from wishful thinking, fantasy and superstition.
On what basis do you accept that the Bible is the word of God? On the basis of your faith that it is! Take for example a psychotic, who believes that monopoly money is real money, attempting to buy groceries with it. To him, the money is "real" but to the rest of the world it's monopoly money.
Two "realities," one dissociated from the other. We can't live outside of this world and make up our own reality. The reality is that which we all experience in common. Those things which are idiosyncratic to us or a small group of people with similar "experience" are not necessarily reality in an absolute sense. To us, seeing is believing, but to bats, it's hearing.
The problem is that some want the whole world to fall in line with one's personal "reality" which is more than likely a solipsistic imagination or even possibly psychotic in nature.
what seems to be implicitly stated is that the [Greek] Church is the a priori principle, that is, we must accept the proclomations of the [Greek] Church outside of experience
No, that's only Church phobia that so many Protestants seem to suffer from. The Greek Church makes no such claims. However, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church that defined Christain God as Divine Trinity, and Christ as one Person, in two natures. That pretty much defines the orthodox Christian faith to which even the Reformers subscribe.
But there are some (especially in the liberal Anglican and other Protestant communities) where the "Holy Spirit" is leading them to "new developments" that was never believed by the "Greek" Church.
The Orthodox Church believes what the Church believed all along but didn't express it unless it was challenged. So, while many Protestants subscribe to the basic orthodox premises of the Holy Trinity and Christology, they differ when it come to the ancient Church beliefs vis a vis atonement (the term didn't even exist in the Church for more 11 centuries), salvation, etc.
In addition to the faith in the trinitarian God and God-man Savior, you accept the canon of the same Church you are mocking, based on nothing more than an a priori belief that it is true. Gnostics, Montanists, Marcionists, Adoptinists, Ebionites, Bogomils, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, Shinto and Buddhists, to mention a few, with equal conviction disagree.
Of all the heterodox beliefs that existed in the early Christian era, we can either assume that they were all correct or that there was only one that was correct and true Church: the one that believes in one triune God, and divine-human Savior, as defined by this "Greek" Church.
Now, if God is really Trinity and Christ is really true God and true Man, as revealed and known to the Church, and the scriptures the Church canonized are true scriptures, can that Church then stray into apostasy? If that is so, then there is no true Church of God, and all the "churches" are equally vulnerable and unreliable, and all contain a little bit of the truth (universalism, relativism), and equally subject to corruption and error, and that would include the scriptures too.
But you believe that God would not let his sheep be snatched away from Him, yet you believe that He would allow His Church to become apostate? How consistent is that?
You may believe that believers are led by the Holy Spirit, but the Church not only isn't, but it's allowed to stray?!? Is this your way of "explaining" your diffeence with the Church?
Or, perhaps, Kosta is a subjectivist and the [Greek] Church is just one form of truth amongst an infinite number of truths, as all empiricists end up being subjectivists.
We are all "subjectivists" to some extent. Some, however, believe their subjectivity way too much and turn into false reality because it "feels right" to them. The sane, however, realize that subjective truth is not necessarily the same as objective truth.