Won’t get too detailed so I don’t accidentally dox myself or something, but I’ve been considering my life up to this point, and I can’t help but feel I definitely might’ve wound up on the wrong side of history if divine intervention and my own intuition hadn’t gotten in the way.
I know people who work at Neuralink, Facebook, Google, IBM, etc. My college was pretty successful for job placement at big name companies
I’ve been in some of the “financial centers and think tanks” of the world as a student. I was presented with opportunities to engage with their work, especially toward the end of my undergraduate career. Most of these people made me uneasy; at the time, I couldn’t place my finger on why. But I always felt the urge to keep those places at arms distance.
As a gifted kid, I feel incredibly blessed to have gotten out of public school relatively unscathed. I feel incredibly lucky I didn’t join the status quo in college despite the pressure to conform.
This refusal to conform is definitely giving me some roadblocks now that I’m trying to get started in my career, but it does feel like I’ve dodged many bullets on the journey. And I’m glad I’m not part of the hive mind like most of my peers.
Anyone else have the same experience?
Edit to say: thanks to everyone who has commented! Really appreciate knowing others have similar journeys.
You are right in pointing out the sinister count of 66 books in protestant canon.
But... How did you arrive at 72 books in the Catholic bible? Pretty easy to confirm that there are 73.
Once the canon was determined, and until the protestant revolution, all of Christianity had the following 7 books, in addition to the 66 the protestants claim:
Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon (Also known simply as “Wisdom”), Sirach (Also known as “The Wisdom of Sirach” or sometimes “Ecclesiasticus”), Baruch
Good 14 minute explanation by Jimmy Akin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKdI-kFbg3Y
I was going off of memory, faulty in this case. It was such a minor point I didn't bother to verify the memory. Thank you for pointing out the error.
With respect to your linked video, he makes a lot of assumptions in his explanation of how we got the bible we got. He assumes that it was tradition and "The Holy Spirit" that guided the final edit. But the final edit was decided at the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople almost 400 years after Jesus. My research suggests there was a great deal of controversy at the time. That was the reason these councils were formed; to end the controversy by the creation of laws, solidify rulership of the Roman Empire, and establish the divine rulership of the Holy Roman Empire. See my other comment in response to someone else directly below this (at the time of this post).
Assuming that "the Holy Spirit" guided the final edit is canon, but that doesn't make it truth. Assuming that "Tradition" is somehow related to truth is also faulty. Assuming that it was in fact tradition, when there is substantial evidence of controversy among different groups that called themselves "Christian" (followers of the teachings of Jesus) is hugely problematic. These assumptions require faith because there is substantial evidence against them.
In general, people do what they do for power. There is substantial evidence that the bible we got, and more importantly, the canon we got, was designed specifically as a power play. In fact, that's not even controversial, at least with regards to the results of all of Europe and no small part of the world being ruled by The Church (one variant or another) for almost two millennia. It was ruled by the canonical laws which were created by the same people who created the final bible. I suggest that was not coincidental.
When Catholics use the word tradition with respect to revelation, they mean all and only those things which Christ taught the apostles and commanded them to hand on, and which are called public revelation - that is, what Christ revealed and which His Church has always taught, faithfully, since it’s founding.
An obvious problem for those who want to have a Bible without a church’s authority backing it is not having any way to determine which books are or are not inspired by God, without essentially becoming their own pope (at least for themselves).
The reason it is essential there be a clear teaching authority for safeguarding and handing on faithfully all of Christ’s teaching is that otherwise you have some admixture of error, and who can resolve which is authentic vs just someone’s opinion. Thus we have 30,000+ different Protestant denominations, all claiming they are teaching only what is true, yet one can find disagreements over virtually every point of belief, including very important matters.