I need you to listen

The following is my too-long-for-Twitter response to Gus:

Gus wrote:
I gave you the aspects of a hypothetical I'd be willing to explore: A non-zero number of Gods exist, and a non-zero number of them are capable of directly inspiring humans.

1. This is the closed mind to which I had referred, this bizarre unwillingness to explore an alternative hypothetical scenario.

Gus wrote:
You didn't present a hypothetical; you presented what you actually believe, and asked how I would preserve the divine cannon as a person.

2. If a scenario consists of some things I actually believe, that doesn't render it no longer hypothetical. For example, let us suppose you were living in the Late Cretaceous and came across the nest of a Tyrannosaurus rex. This is a hypothetical scenario—"imagined or suggested, but perhaps not true or really happening"—despite consisting of several things I actually believe. The hypothetical in my scenario was a preacher who received revelation from God and who performed astonishing miracles, and you following him for a time, hearing his message and witnessing those miracles. That preacher did not exist and you never experienced those things; in other words, it was a hypothetical.

3. But I didn't present what I actually believe at any rate. You ought to be familiar with this already as a former Christian but Protestants hold that the canon is closed. In this hypothetical scenario it isn't closed: This person was receiving revelation from God and performing miracles. My view doesn't allow for such a scenario (although I can grant it for the sake of argument).

4. I did not ask how you would preserve the canon. We may simply grant that it is being preserved. What I asked is how you would communicate to your grandchildren that those writings were inspired.

Gus wrote:
To which I will continue to affirm that it shouldn’t be my job as a human to ensure that I pass the message down correctly, because I don’t see how I could ever actually know that I understood the message correctly enough to pass it down without accidentally distorting the meaning.

5. The scenario didn't require you to pass a message down.

Gus wrote:
Nor do I think my grandchildren would be justified in believing my accounts even if I relayed them with complete accuracy …

6. The scenario didn't require you to communicate an account nor your grandchildren to believe it.

Gus wrote:
If God wanted me to get some particular message ...

7. That has nothing to do with the proposed scenario.

Gus wrote:
I do not know of any magician that can perform the miracles you used as example.

8. This hardly seems to matter, since you missed nearly the entire point anyhow.

Gus wrote:
The tricks magicians today can perform would be viewed in the same manner as the miracles you described.

9. What was the manner I described? (Hint: I didn't describe anyone viewing those miracles in any particular way.)

Gus wrote:
This speaks to the issue with assigning divine causation to events 2,000 years in the past, observed by people who lacked a framework or knowledge to properly investigate that causation.

10. The "people" doing the observing was supposed to be a 21st-century individual named Gus, who I had expected to have a framework or knowledge to properly investigate that causation. But that likewise doesn't matter, because the scenario didn't require you to investigate the miracles as to how they were done. We could simply grant that you had investigated and confirmed for yourself that they were legitimate, astonishing as they were, in order to address what I had actually asked.

~ ~ ~

This seems to be a recurring pattern with you, this curious failure to engage what was actually said. It's almost as if what I'm saying, the words or phrases I use, triggers you to hear something you have dealt with before instead of what I had actually said. Gus, I need you to really slow down and read (carefully) what I am actually saying, or asking, or arguing. And if there is any uncertainty or confusion, rephrase it in your own words and then ask me, "Is that what you're saying?" Having to dismiss irrelevant responses from you is a hindrance to the fruitful discussion we could otherwise be enjoying.

As a refresher, here again is what I had said:

All right, let's have a closer look at your third point. I agree that it's the central hub around which the other points turn. Let's suppose you met someone who boldly preached the gospel with authority, through whom the obviously crippled were healed and the dead were raised back to life, not to mention other miracles. Let's also assume that you witnessed these things personally, directly, for you had briefly followed him. I think it would make sense for you to accept this person—what he said, what he did, and what he wrote—as filled with the power of God, whose writing is theopneustos (from God). And let's include others along with you, altogether constituting the local assemblies.

Now comes the hard part. The following generations—your grandchildren, for example—how would you instruct them as to the divine canon? They didn't witness those miracles, but surely that doesn't mean those writings somehow are no longer God's revelation to his church. Clearly they are, but how do you communicate that to your grandchildren?