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....
It simply means accepting something beforehand. In otherwords, an assumption.
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.
You bet it is. And people who depend on this presumption as the starting point don't even realize it how blatant it is.
when the Bible speaks over and over again, from God's lips
My point exactly. Assuming, as a matter of fact (whereas it is blind faith) that the Bible speaks form the "lips" of God is a perfect example of the a priori acceptance. Instead of saying "We believe the Bible speaks ...from the lips of God," it is stated as a mater of fact, when factual proof cannot be established, but rather rests on one's a priori conviction.
can you really put such things in the category of "a priori"?
Of course I can. I just did. :)
No, you can't because with regard to the nature of man himself, the Bible is PERFECTLY "in accordance with previously established fact" 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.
The a priori acceptance here is that it is not St. Paul speaking, but God through him.
But, FK, your own Reformed theology contradicts this: once you accept Jesus as your Savior, what you do doesn't matter as far as your assurance of inheritance of the Kingdom of God (another loaded OT term which was Christianized to mean something else), which is another a priori acceptance.
The problem is that all these claims require absolute blind faith. Gravity doesn't. No one doubts gravity. There is a qualitative difference in a priori a acceptance of biblical claims and physician reality. An a priori acceptance is a matter of choice. We choose to go to church (unless Reformers think otherwise, and feel that they are "frog marched" to go to church against their will).
Of course he is. Therefore, the totality of scripture is not "a priori". The Bible gives man the truth about himself flat out
It's not what the Bible give us about man that is a priori, but what it says about God. We can verify what is said about man, but we must accept a priori that what is in the Bible is from "God's lips."
So, what about the faith part? The Bible speaks of ears to hear and eyes to see, and these must come from God.
No, if I wanted to give my writing credibility and convincing character without proof, I would invoke a higher power. That is just a logical human approach.
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!
The comparison is only superficial and dead wrong. Just because Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in one God doesn't mean we believe the same thing. The equation (monotheism) is only superficial. Obviously, LDS and Christians, on a superficial level, share Jesus as the Savior, so saying that He is our Lord and Savior does not mean we are arguing from the position of a committed Mormon!
Atheism is in the same predicament as those who believe in God. Atheists flat out deny God without any evidence to prove their denial. Just because we don't see radio waves doesn't mean they don't exist! The only reason we all agree they exist is because we can detect them. Believers, however, claim that what they believe is absolute truth because they have the "ears and the eyes" to "detect" God!
Faith does not require proof (by definition). That's why it is futile to try to argue faith. If you have faith, you can not prove it, and you cannot be proven wrong either.
Actually? I would like to see how you integrated empirical evidence of prehistoric life with that claim.
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
No, we simply depend on our discovery to know what happened. We don't have to "believe" in dinosaurs, FK. We know they existed and we know they are not mentioned in the Bible. And neither is homo australopithecus; yet we know he existed too.
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.
We are not the litmus test of God's existence. I am not under pressure to explain how come some versions of the Bibles say unrecognizable things, but I would assume that is because God either allowed it, or, conversely, because the Bible is not the word of God. One of those possibilities is correct. Take your pick.
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".
I don't deny that St. Paul wrote the Epistles (at least the earlier ones). I also believe that he was moved by faith to write what he believed. Inspiration by faith is not synonymous with inerrancy. That is an a priori assumption by some.
He didn't say to "this dog" but to "dogs" (Canaanites) in general.
Let's see what the scriptures say about the story you bring up:
Matt 15: If your own passage doesn't show that Christ also came to save Gentiles then I don't know what does.
The Gospel here simply expresses the standard Judaic view of the Gentiles. What Christ did was recognize that there were Gentiles who were righteous. Such Gentiles are known in Judaism as " the righteous Gentiles" or "Noahides," or "people at the gate." And, yes, Judaism believes they are saved by tagging along with the Jews. But that was not the purpose of Messiah's coming according to Judaism. The example in Mat 15 is simply an act/work of mercy (mitzvah) that any observant Jew is expected to perform, and is part of over 600 God's commandments the Jews are expected to follow (some of them are missions, and some of them are omissions).
Is your contention that Christ was surprised by this and made a one-time exception?
Not at all. Mitzvot (plural of mitzvah) is part of every practicing Jew's daily life.
In Christ's own words it SHOWED that the "lost sheep of Israel" included Gentiles. That is, EXACTLY as Paul said, BTW.
Nothing could be farther form the truth, FK. Your interpretation neglects the Nohaides. Chances are you never even heard of them, and how they fit into Judaism.
Kosta: 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).
FK: Forgive me if this sounds like a cheap shot, but I didn't think you believed much in Biblical "facts"
I don't care if the shot is cheap or not, but I do care of your reply adequately addresses my statement. In this case it doesn't. I am simply stating what the Bible says. I imagine that all those who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God are obligated to accept as immutable truth. Acts 13:46 leave no doubt why the message was taken to the Gentiles: the Jews rejected it (and continue to reject is to this day).
I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but it seems to me that, when the Bible doesn't agree with Protestant theology, it is ignored (cherry-picking). Not only is there nowhere in the Gospels a verse that says Israel includes Gentiles.
St. Paul actually says that Jews are by nature somehow different from Gentiles:
"We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles" (Gal 2:15)
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
There is nothing to indicate this to be a process, FK. It's quite definitive. Nothing could pimpled form the way it is expressed to mean that sometime in the future there is hope for the Jews to change their mind.
That is, unless you want to say that God failed, or that the Bible is wrong.
It is only God's "failure" if you believe God pulls all the things and we are just lifeless puppets. If you recognize that God gave man freedom to choose, then it is not God who failed, but man. God simply keeps on giving everyone more and more chance to repent, no matter how much people keep throwing those chances away.
God intended what happened with the Jews all along
Nope. He foreknew what choices everyone would make. What we do affects us, not God. God helps those who help themselves.
SO THAT the Gospels would then be preached to the Gentiles.
If that is so, He makes no hints about this in His mission. Remember, the Gospels set the stage. Everyone else in the NT follows. What is in the Gospels is the standard against which all NT writings must be reconciled. Not the other way around.
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?
That is Paul's gospel, FK. The "Bible" is the wrong word to sue because it misleads the reader. Paul, and only Paul says that. No one else, especially the Gospels.
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
Not as part of His mission and ministry.
Simple mitzvot. Very understandable and expectable from an observant orthodox Jew.
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.
I don't know. I have difficulty believing that when He said "it's finished (accomplished)" He meant that St. Paul was supposed to add to His teaching because somehow it wasn't finished, that somehow He left his mission incomplete!
As for Revelation, was not Christ Himself the fullness of God's revelation? We needed Revelation on top of that? As if Christ didn't finish His mission?
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.
That is "negative?" There were was no "nudge," just God's unlimited mercy that offered life to all those who would come to Him. And, yes, by destroying death, we believe He freed us to come to Him or to reject Him; The consequences of our choices are clear.
NOW, with Paul, the corollary would be that God gave Paul a "nudge"
Yes, to save the Church, not to do a sequel to Christ's ministry.
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.
But Acts Chapter 1 shows us that the Apostles did not know that, and one of then was St. John. Now, it doesn't mean that St. John lied when He wrote it, but that the full nature of Christ's ministry became known to the Apostles after the fact. Any cursory study of ancient manuscripts will tell you that ancient writers use quotes in a distinctly different manner then we do.
Ancient usage of quotes is not verbatim transcription of someone's utterances, but what the author believed that someone intended to say. This flies in the face of usage of quotes just as our terminology (coming from OT) is given Christianized meaning which differs from that in Judaism.
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.
No. In Mark 16 it says the believers will exhibit signs. It means all believers. If it were not all, then it would be preceded by some believers...In this case Christ coming for the lost sheep of Israel means all spiritually lost members of Israel, which doesn't include Gentiles as part of His ministry.
It always goes back to context
You bet!
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.
Oh, come on! :) You know the arguments over "many". OK, how do you explain this...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....
Much a saying' about nothing, FK. What "some" means is that some will benefit from His sacrifice, but not all. Some will come to Him and be saved; other will reject Him and be lost. His intention was for all of mankind, but He also reminds us that not all will take advantage of His freely offered mercy.