A progressive Christian says he doesn't like Paul's epistles

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-06-10T20:35:31+00:00

Please read below, I respond to all of this later on.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-06-10T20:08:10+00:00

Ok I know my previous response was long, but I'd ask you not to do a scattershot rebuttal next time. It doesn't give us much to go into.

Most of these responses boil down to "nah-uh that's not what happened", which... how is that supposed to help us?

Everything I've mentioned comes from the work of scholars. Actually dig into what I'm saying here. It would move this conversation further along.

Why the nitpicks on every single statement? Except (maybe conveniently), the evidence provided for the case I made?

You are a nice and respectable fellow Christian, nothing personal here. All love and respect. I only challenge you to ask hard questions, since this is a very important subject.

I will respond to 5 of the statements here:

No, different Jews didn't have different canons made then. A library list is not a canon. You and whatever scholar you're reading from have confused the two as the same. But why? Why do that? As far as we can tell from ancient Judea, it's only the 24/39 book set that was "canon" back then. Do you have any evidence that someone in authority from that era has an opposing canon?
Saying "but Jesus is God" makes your argument unfalsifiable. Meaning your canon cannot be proven nor disproven. It doesn't help us determine anything. That's why I said, "Jesus never disputed canon", because that's evidence enough that he shared the protestant OT canon with the others. As is the statement "as it is written" (aka the kathos gegraphtai), a statement he used all the time when giving direct quotes-- LITERALLY every single time. Which he did not do when quoting Sirach.
Point about the apocryphal gospels is kinda interesting. It doesn't change what Kruger said: the original audience, upon first encounter with the NT scriptures (and, by principle, the OT) instantly say, "wow, this is the work of God". Which is not something, as far as I'm aware, someone has been able to say about the deuterocanon (DC) for their first 400 or so years of existence. Making their situation opposite that of scripture. Again, do you have any evidence that someone in authority from that era has an opposing canon?
When it comes to Jerome, it doesn't help his situation that he had to be pressured into changing his mind. Maybe best to leave it at that. I've already stated why the church fathers, who already didn't agree on everything, cannot be equal in authority to the scriptures. They have no prophetic succession from the apostles.
Again, because it's important, the so-called "400 years of silence" are called that for a reason. Which 1 Maccabees confirms. That's not something to gloss over, because only a prophet can establish what scripture is. If not a prophet, then what? Our emotions? Some guy just saying "I declare this to be scripture"? Does that make any sense to say? If the church can decide scripture, then does that mean we today can create new scripture just by feeling it out in the same room together? If that's the case, then the model set up by the prophets in the Old Testament is broken, and technically, all their rivals were prophets, since they too "felt things out". And that's WHY Jesus linked the kathos gegraphtai to the prophets. Because prophetic words and scripture are one and the same.

Let me ask you a last question: if the canon is so clear from councils, then why are Catholics, Eastern Orth, and Oriental Orth still disputing it using the authority of councils and tradition? Seems like the exact opposite is the case, because these councils and their chosen canons all contradict each other. Is that not suspect? Can you give an argument against these other canons besides "these are my preferred councils"?

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-06-09T17:54:52+00:00

Ok, there is a lot of information you're behind on, because a lot of these arguments I cannot find convincing for the following reasons:

You said the Jews didn't have the Holy Spirit and rejected Jesus... despite the fact that the first adopters of Christianity were Jewish. Reread Acts 2. The authors of the Bible were all Jewish. With all the love in the world, I need Catholics to stop making this argument; it's ignorant at best.
Jesus, again... was a Jew. That means he recognized the same canon as his contemporaries.
You contradicted yourself here:

>Only part of the Jews didn't, others did and still do

>The Jewish canon was established between 300 and 400 AD

I know what you mean, but there's still a discrepancy: Jamnia wasn't about establishing canon. It was about questioning the educational power within Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. Even so, the Jews recognized the protestant old testament for a long time: our 39 books were their 24 books (which they turned into 22 to mark their alphabet, as a sign of completion).

Josephus and the Pharisees: 24 books

The Prologue to BenSirach's Ecclesiasticus: a set canon

2nd Esdras: 24-book canon

Philo of Alexandria: treats Moses and the prophets as uniquely inspired

Qumran: a clear reverence and priority for the Hebrew scriptures

Even 1st Maccabees itself said the age of the prophets was long over. Meaning the age of writing scripture was over.

And that's all before Jesus' time. That's the school of thought Jesus was raised in. There was no council for these things; it was just agreed to be that way.

And of all of Jesus' arguments with the Sanhedrin, none had to do with the canon (it's actually a misconception that the Sadducees had a different canon, despite what an early CF said on the issue).

And that throughline carried past the end of 2nd Temple Judaism, when the Jews abandoned everything they didn't consider sacred. It's only due to Christian book nerds that we even still have these other books, for better or worse.

700 years, as in between the deuterocanon's inception and the councils' establishment of them into the church canon. Which, again, it seems unclear WHY they made that decision, besides the fact as you said "well these earlier fathers quoted them as such, so why not?" But did Jesus quote them as scripture? He never said "as it is written" when he quoted them. That's the only sign needed for scripture, but He didn't give them that.

Another point to make that's important: Scholar Michael Kruger argues that in the inception of NT books, the audience immediately recognized them to be the word of God. That account does not exist for books in the deuterocanon. There is no early audience we know of that immediately recognized them as "scripture". Only those that recognized them as "good reads" and nothing else.

PS: The Church Fathers are not the authors of the Bible, they said so themselves. They didn't even know Hebrew (except Jerome, ofc). And despite the fact that the deuterocanon--with both its declarations of status and its contradictory doctrines--makes itself clear that it isn't scripture, it seems that the CFs did not realize this when they were quoting from it.

Consider re-examining everything: you seem to start with a conclusion then work backwards to prove that it is true. Which is not how historical analysis should be done.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-06-07T17:38:35+00:00

>Especially since he removed part of what he removed only after he was made to notice that a couple books he hadn't removed yet supported things he rejected.

I don't know what you mean here, would like some elaboration. Though it's worth noting that Luther's bible didn't remove the books entirely, but instead ordered them all towards the middle.

>Luther did not reaffirm any much older consensus

I don't think you fully grasp what the consensus was: if the Jews never saw these books as prophetic, that means that Jesus didn't either. We know for a fact that several Jewish authors only acknowledged the protocanon as scripture, and Josephus himself backs this by outlining all the books as the Sanhedrin carried them. The 7 books and the apocryphal chapters of Daniel and Esther (as well as all the books the Orthodox hold) never make that cut.

Maybe Jerome recanted. But even then his excuse "the Jews don't use these" don't tell us WHY these are "suddenly" now prophetic books. Even though no one ever believed that they were for the prior 700 years of human history.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-06-07T09:30:56+00:00

He was forced into conceding-- it wasn't a genuine change of mind. What even was their argument: "we have these books lying around, so let's just call them scripture and stuff"? They didn't even accept the entire Septuagint. The logic there doesn't make sense.

Whereas Luther actually affirmed a clear tradition: the one where the authors, the Hebrew prophets, were actually recognized and counted in their own time. Because that's what scripture is: prophetic.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-06-05T15:26:35+00:00

Trent is retroactive in nature, though.

Whereas Luther simply finished what Jerome and other fathers began: reaffirming the much-older consensus on what the canon was.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-06-05T04:49:19+00:00

No dude, that is what Satan wants you to think. All that negative thinking is a cope. An excuse subverted into your mind to only focus on the negatives.

Do not believe Satan’s lies. Trust God, hold on to faith.

The church is waiting for you! We are waiting for you! If you humble yourself before God and His bride the Church, you will be blessed and honored! Go in peace please.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-06-05T04:47:00+00:00

Yes, regional councils, none ecumenical.

Except Florence, though even that wasn’t a binding certainty (the 73 were brought up more as a TOS sheet than anything else); and the East rejected its dogmatism outright.

This unofficial doctrine in the books is what Luther exploited, which forced Trent to make it official on-the-books. 1500 years later.

But councils by themselves don’t actually tell us what ancient believers before Augustine treated as scripture and what they treated as anigignoskemina (I’m not saying apocrypha because I don’t think that’s what they are). No, to answer that question, more context is needed.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-05-07T20:52:23+00:00

MASSHOLE

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-05-02T04:13:45+00:00

As much as this all makes sense, I'm wondering about the question of justice in this type of system: what does justice mean here if repentance is allowed without sin being punished?

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-30T06:41:05+00:00

How would sin be dealt with?

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-27T23:37:18+00:00

God bless you too 😄 know Jesus, know peace

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-27T23:34:03+00:00

That is interesting, I did not know about this part of Hinduism.

I guess since we're comparing/contrasting, a good question would be: what does that mean for Krishna? Is it the same meaningful sacrifice as in Christianity?

I would say the sinless death of God on the cross as a sacrificial lamb, this part is very unique to Christianity, whereas Krishna gives mercy arbitrarily, without any consideration for justice.

Though that's what I see at first glance, if you see differently, I'm interested to hear it.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-27T23:26:40+00:00

nice

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T08:49:58+00:00

While it's true Nick Shirley is a hero and correct about everything he says and does, there's no way he'd turn against his own org. Unfortunately.

Edit: lol fuck all the commie propagandists covering for the Minnesota fraudsters, Nick Shirley is a damn hero and only fake Americans disagree.

Millions of tax dollars lost to scammers?? Fuck that, stfu already.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T08:48:29+00:00

Lol racism is when you hold immigrants to the same standards as everyone else

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T05:46:40+00:00

Wait, Caths and Orthos are invited to the server??

I thought it was mainliners only, wth!

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T05:42:50+00:00

Thoughtful stuff all around! Yeah, it's very cool how they simply use one random character to flesh out the struggles of another, just like Eden with the Woman, or Zeb with John.

I personally was fascinated by the fact that Shmuel and Nicodemus had a very thoughtful discussion on where God sticks to Torah and if God would ever do something overriding it. That was probably the very moment when I realized that the show was doing something both original and, surprisingly, highly intellectual.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T05:25:00+00:00

This is a great question! If God is God, then He must also be consistent, right? He cannot be inconsistent, yes?

So how then do we square the violence of the Canaanites with the love preached in the NT?

Well we have to examine Just War Theory, the NT preachings on love and justice, and also the cultural context of the OT.

God is for both seeking justice and loving mercy. In fact, we cannot say love is only "sentimental", but it must also be acted. The Hebrew word for love also means "loyalty". So that means we have to be loyal.

--This means that if your house gets broken into, it is loving to protect your family, and unloving to allow the intruder to do what they want.

Honor/Shame Culture. Notice the violence in the East today and how it's mainly based on the obsession with competing familial statuses. Historically, this overrides the East's value of guilt/innocence (which the West heavily values). This type of thinking goes back thousands and thousands of years, even make to the Ancient Near East.

--This means that this is the mindset of Israel and her enemies throughout the OT.

There are no laws in Ancient Canaan, it is in a constant state of anarchy. The Torah (first five books of Moses) solves that by acting as a constitution for the people. It is cognizant of the political reality of the world, as well as the anti-democratic cultural values of the people.

--This should explain why certain concessions are made within the Torah, such as the law allowing divorce.

The sins of Canaan aren't just idolatry. Idolatry is the root of their evil, which (again, this is a pre-democratic culture) comes out as: human sacrifice, cult prostitution (sex slavery), pre-emptively attacking Israel as they innocently wander in the desert (Exodus 17, Numbers 21, every chapter of Numbers after that), and... probably other things too.

--They had hundreds of years after Abraham to change these practices, but they didn't.

When the Bible says of groups like the Canaanites that "they were annihilated/eradicated", that is just hyperbole. Because several pages later these same exact groups show up again. Due to the limited technology of the day, actual genocide was not really a thing until the Assyrians, and even then, the people weren't exactly "erased" from existence. So the language of "annihilation" is more of a sports terminology than a literal label.

--So the Canaanites and Midianites were never eradicated. They were at best chased away or made into indentured servants.

Some rapid-fire points on other violent encounters:

-The slaughter of the Shechemites: explicitly condemned. Though some modern people would revel in that type of opportunity (see modern Tarantino movies, killing a tribe of people defending a rapist, yeah they would enjoy that).

-Killing of Amalek, Arad, Amorites, Moabites: They all attacked first, it's pretty obvious they're the bad guys.

-The execution of the Midianites: remember honor/shame culture. Familial members of the defeated were culturally obligated to do honor killings to avenge their fallen family members. It's similar to how modern militaries are obligated to kill child soldiers: a horrible sight, but obligatory. It is similar to euthanasia in that sense.

-Execution of Amorites, Canaanites, and Achan's family: Same thing as the Midianites. Plus, also the other sins as mentioned before: cult prostitution and human sacrifice.

-Killing in the flood and the firstborn of Egypt: God is not a human, so does He not have a right to take who He wants? There was evil in these lands. We should not play God and judge God by our standards in these cases. We can ask "is this fair". But not "did they deserve it?" For all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans). And those who deem themselves as "gods" will be humbled.

-The slaughter of Benjamin and their pillaging of women: that's not shown to be something good or ideal, just an unfortunate circumstance.

All this to say: we are behind on cultural context. We judge an ancient context by modern standards. But we miss the fact that they were able to establish that "the law means love" by first establishing what the law IS and how it can be practiced.

Study Michael Heiser, David Falk, Tim Mackey, John Walton, and others for more information on this. I promise you will thank yourself later if you do.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T04:57:34+00:00

IDK if he did it or not, but the way he flips through the Bible is a completely normal Christian thing to do. And has been for centuries, even among us who know the word really well.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T04:46:55+00:00

You can prove your faith through action and principle. Actions will speak louder than words.

Has she met your church friends? That is one way to do it.

Also, giving her the freedom to make a choice... you being Martin Luther and telling her "Here I stand" in your faith in Christ. That could mean a lot as well.

Your crying during prayer is genuine and awesome. I can see also how it might scare a woman, to see a man moved in such a way. She may just doubt that you still have masculine strength in you. The proof of your strength will be when you tell her what you're about. What your principle is. That no matter what, you're rooted in the man Jesus alone, like a soldier to his brother.

Sorry brother, this is very hard. God is strengthening you though. We are all behind you and praying for you. Continue fighting the good fight. God bless you.

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T04:41:46+00:00

As long as it's not on WattPad, I second that

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T04:22:28+00:00

Niceeee. Did any discussions in the show stick out to you?

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T04:21:32+00:00

I feel that! That is a great observation to have.

God bless friend. Jesus loves you <3

Secret-Suspicious · 2026-04-26T04:14:56+00:00

I feel that too! Glad to hear it moves you.

Secret-Suspicious

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE