The Protestant Canon

[Resha Caner]

Suppose I pretended to be a Christian. I went to church. I tithed regularly. I prayed with my family. But in my heart I held complete and utter contempt for God, and in my private thoughts I cursed him without ceasing. According to your utterly absurd strawman, I'd be a Christian.

Satan, pretending to be Christ, would still be Satan on the inside. Is there a part of that you don't understand?

I understand. I also must assume 2 things:
1) You have rejected my request to refer to a general hypothetical person. May I ask why?
2) You are stipulating that, while different on the "inside", there is absolutely no means by which a third party would be able to distinguish this hypothetical person from Jesus. Not even God the Father would know the difference.

 

[SPF]

I'm sorry, but what you've said and quoted here is completely useless to the conversation. To say that the canon has been closed since circa 400AD is wrong because the Protestants have modified it. Have you read the OP? And how can your source seriously attest that there were 66 books all along?

This entire thread is about the removal of the Apocrypha and you've dug up a source that seemingly doesn't even know what the Apocrypha are.

Is there a Protestant council that I’m unaware of that changed the Canon from the one I referenced and then another council later that changed it back?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Is there a Protestant council that I’m unaware of that changed the Canon from the one I referenced and then another council later that changed it back?

What? The deuterocanonical books were present in every Bible until Martin Luther. So the "66 books" claim from circa 400 is false.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I understand. I also must assume 2 things:
1) You have rejected my request to refer to a general hypothetical person. May I ask why?

Because an ordinary person cannot perform miracles and hence cannot impersonate the messiah.

2) You are stipulating that, while different on the "inside", there is absolutely no means by which a third party would be able to distinguish this hypothetical person from Jesus. Not even God the Father would know the difference.

It's long been my understanding that God is telepathic, rendering your claim here false. Do you contend that God does not know your thoughts?

 

[Resha Caner]

Because an ordinary person cannot perform miracles and hence cannot impersonate the messiah.

OK. I don't know if Satan can perform miracles, so it wasn't obvious to me you chose that name for that reason. This is all hypothetical and I specifically stated you can list any traits you want for this person, so the hypothetical person could be allowed miracles. I'm getting tired of typing "hypothetical person", so I'm going to call him Brian - Brian, who can do anything Jesus can do.

It's long been my understanding that God is telepathic, rendering your claim here false. Do you contend that God does not know your thoughts?

Well, again, I don't know what mystical powers you think God has, so I didn't know you thought him telepathic (or expected me to think that). Honestly, I didn't know if God existed in your scenario. I wasn't sure if you were asking about Brian mimicking an existing god or if Brian was an evil god, promising salvation and then denying it, or ...

To answer your question, yes God knows my thoughts (Psalms 139:2).

OK. In your scenario God exists and is telepathic. Since Jesus is God (assuming you're OK with that), and since Brian can do anything Jesus can do, that means Brian is also telepathic, right? Does that mean Brian knows God's thoughts?

[digression] As a slight digression, if your question is simply, "Can people fool others into thinking they are the Messiah?" then the answer is yes, and we don't have to go through all this. Brian doesn't have to be an evil god. Why? Because it's already happened. Others already have been convinced someone else besides Jesus is the Messiah.

But I'm not sure where you're going with this, so I don't know what you consider necessary to the scenario.

 

[SPF]

What? The deuterocanonical books were present in every Bible until Martin Luther. So the "66 books" claim from circa 400 is false.

they weren’t considered Canon.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

they weren’t considered Canon.

Right, they were deuterocanonical. Why? Why were they in the Bible?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

OK. I don't know if Satan can perform miracles, so it wasn't obvious to me you chose that name for that reason.

Ask any Christian.

This is all hypothetical and I specifically stated you can list any traits you want for this person, so the hypothetical person could be allowed miracles. I'm getting tired of typing "hypothetical person", so I'm going to call him Brian - Brian, who can do anything Jesus can do.

No. It's Satan.

Well, again, I don't know what mystical powers you think God has, so I didn't know you thought him telepathic (or expected me to think that).

Again, ask any Christian.

Honestly, I didn't know if God existed in your scenario.

The scenario was:

It's 10BC and you're Satan. Satan doesn't exist without God.

I wasn't sure if you were asking about Brian mimicking an existing god or if Brian was an evil god, promising salvation and then denying it, or ...

Satan. There's no Brian.

To answer your question, yes God knows my thoughts (Psalms 139:2).

Then why are you toying with me?

OK. In your scenario God exists and is telepathic. Since Jesus is God (assuming you're OK with that), and since Brian can do anything Jesus can do,

There's no Brian. It's Satan.

Further, Jesus never read anyone's mind. It's widely accepted that he had limited power as a man.

Lastly, Satan would merely be mimicking the messiah with the power available to him.

that means Brian is also telepathic, right? Does that mean Brian knows God's thoughts?

No, but I do know your thoughts. You're going with Brian as a reference to Life of Brian, the famous Monty Python film, because you think this whole thing is a joke. I'm finishing up with this post and then I'm finished with you. I do believe there have been enough chances.

[digression] As a slight digression, if your question is simply, "Can people fool others into thinking they are the Messiah?" then the answer is yes, and we don't have to go through all this. Brian doesn't have to be an evil god. Why? Because it's already happened. Others already have been convinced someone else besides Jesus is the Messiah.

Yes. Obviously. Hence the obvious question, "How do you know the events of the NT weren't orchestrated by Satan, especially considering that it would be consistent with Satan's agenda and previous actions to do so?"

But I'm not sure where you're going with this, so I don't know what you consider necessary to the scenario.

I'm fine with that. I'm well past the point of expecting an answer. Thanks for your time.

 

[SPF]

Right, they were deuterocanonical. Why? Why were they in the Bible?

Theres something like 250+ OT references in the NT. Do you know how many references are in the NT that source from the Deuterocanonical books?

Again, by 400, the Canon was pretty much settled.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ask any Christian.

And I would issue the same challenge to any Christian. Though Satan appears to have some powers (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9), they are limited. Much of what angels do requires God's permission, including Satan (Job 1:12). So show me. Show me the examples of what Satan can or can't do.

If you can't, this is completely hypothetical from both our perspectives. You are the one ascribing these powers to Satan, not me, not the Bible. Therefore, there is no difference between your version of Satan and my version of Brian except a name.

If Satan can't read God's mind, how did he know this needed to be done in 10 B.C.? He didn't. Satan can't incarnate himself as far as I know. Satan can't resurrect himself as far as I know.

Then why are you toying with me?

Why are you so upset about it all? Did you expect this scenario to be real for me in some way? If so, I've tried to let you know over and over that it isn't. I've been very open with you that this is nothing more than hypothetical. I don't understand why it bothers you so much to discuss this as a hypothetical situation.

Yes. Obviously. Hence the obvious question, "How do you know the events of the NT weren't orchestrated by Satan, especially considering that it would be consistent with Satan's agenda and previous actions to do so?"

I've been indirectly asking what you base all of this on. Now I'll ask directly: What do you base all of this on? If God is real - if this is to be based on the Bible, then the answer is that it wouldn't happen because Satan is not capable of doing what you suggest. What you suggest is, as far as I know, an imaginary Satan unsupported by the Bible.

If you're stepping outside that and making this hypothetical, then yes, it could happen just like the Matrix could happen. But if there's no way for me to know it's happening, it's a pointless question. And honestly, I don't think evil wants that. Evil wants recognition. It wants to be God. It wants to be known for what it is. It's no fun tricking someone who doesn't know they're being tricked - just as it's rule #1 in a murder mystery that you have to leave enough clues that a smart reader can figure out whodunit. Information hiding is the #1 sin in writing suspense.

But, finally, why go to such extremes to set up this scenario? I've already conceded people can be fooled. In the end, this is a question about theodicy. Why does God let it happen?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Theres something like 250+ OT references in the NT. Do you know how many references are in the NT that source from the Deuterocanonical books?

Yes, the NT writers only had access to the Greek version. But are you going to remove, say, Song of Solomon also? It wasn't referenced as far as I know. If you want to keep it because it was approved by the Jews, then what is your issue with the Talmud?

Again, by 400, the Canon was pretty much settled.

And you can't find me a single Bible over the next thousand years that has the 66 books - no more, no less - which are recognized by Protestants today. Why would the Holy Spirit allow uninspired texts to remain in there for so long, and who was the divinely inspired person or people to remove them?

 

[SPF]

Yes, the NT writers only had access to the Greek version. But are you going to remove, say, Song of Solomon also? It wasn't referenced as far as I know. If you want to keep it because it was approved by the Jews, then what is your issue with the Talmud?

Well, Jerome assembled all 66 books around AD 400. Of course, it was already accepted prior to this, he just compiled them. Again, as I previously said, you can find over 250 OT references in the NT, and did you say how many deuterocanonical references you found in the NT?

You're right that there were a bunch of NT letters floating about. But it's really cool to look back and see the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding which letters were authentic and which weren't. By the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, we pretty much knew 90+% which NT letters were authentic and which weren't.

And you can't find me a single Bible over the next thousand years that has the 66 books - no more, no less - which are recognized by Protestants today. Why would the Holy Spirit allow uninspired texts to remain in there for so long, and who was the divinely inspired person or people to remove them?

Sounds like a really cool story on how the Spirit managed to preserve Scripture so that today we have the Canon despite fallen man's interference.

You look at the history of the formation of the Canon and see chaos and subjectivity. I look back at the history of the formation of the Canon and see the Spirit's intricate and intentional working.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, Jerome assembled all 66 books around AD 400.

Sans the Apocrypha?

Of course, it was already accepted prior to this, he just compiled them. Again, as I previously said, you can find over 250 OT references in the NT, and did you say how many deuterocanonical references you found in the NT?

Lol. Christians dodge questions like there's no tomorrow. You certainly have done so and surely will continue to do so. And yet here you are jumping on me for giving an explanation instead of a direct yes or no. But I don't dodge questions. No, the Apocrypha were not quoted in the NT. As I said, the NT was a Greek document and the there was no Greek translation of the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha might as well have been buried in a crater on the moon while the NT was being drafted.

You're right that there were a bunch of NT letters floating about.

Huh? Whom are you talking about? I didn't say that.

But it's really cool to look back and see the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding which letters were authentic and which weren't. By the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, we pretty much knew 90+% which NT letters were authentic and which weren't.

You're still talking about hundreds of years there. And over another thousand to remove the Apocrypha. Why? This was the OP and you have yet to propose an answer.

Sounds like a really cool story on how the Spirit managed to preserve Scripture so that today we have the Canon despite fallen man's interference.

Huh? Why is it cool to preserve falsehoods among the truth?

You look at the history of the formation of the Canon and see chaos and subjectivity. I look back at the history of the formation of the Canon and see the Spirit's intricate and intentional working.

When I look at you I see a person who dodges nearly every question thrown at him while insisting that his opponent repeats answers that were already given.

 

[SPF]

No, the Apocrypha were not quoted in the NT. As I said, the NT was a Greek document and the there was no Greek translation of the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha might as well have been buried in a crater on the moon while the NT was being drafted.

The NT authors, especially Paul would have been very familiar with the Apocrypha. It was not quoted because it was not considered as authoritative as the Torah.

And over another thousand to remove the Apocrypha. Why? This was the OP and you have yet to propose an answer.

The apocrypha was never considered inspired like the rest of the Canon.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The NT authors, especially Paul would have been very familiar with the Apocrypha. It was not quoted because it was not considered as authoritative as the Torah.

Source? Your own speculation?

The apocrypha was never considered inspired like the rest of the Canon.

So then why was it in the Bible for over a millennium? Please answer this directly or else just don't bother. Thanks.

 

[SPF]

So then why was it in the Bible for over a millennium? Please answer this directly or else just don't bother. Thanks.

I'm not sure why you aren't able to recognize the difference between the Canon and the apocrypha. The apocrypha is not considered inspired Scripture. It's simply not champ.

Source? Your own speculation?

Sort of a Captain Obvious sort of a thing. You do realize that Paul had the entirety of the OT memorized. It was a different culture. They didn't have google to look up commentaries or contradictions or anything else trolls look up. They actually memorized text. It was an oral society.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm not sure why you aren't able to recognize the difference between the Canon and the apocrypha. The apocrypha is not considered inspired Scripture. It's simply not champ.
Sort of a Captain Obvious sort of a thing. You do realize that Paul had the entirety of the OT memorized. It was a different culture. They didn't have google to look up commentaries or contradictions or anything else trolls look up. They actually memorized text. It was an oral society.

Thanks. We're done.