[kosta50]

Then why do you include Revelation of John into deterocanonical books?

Deuterocanonical books are part of the Septuagint, not NT material of questionable validity.

[HarleyD]

What are you talking about; the deuterocanonical books or the apocrapha? This all started in post 8976 where you stated:

It matters, HD, because the Christian concept of Satan being the same as the devil, which appears only in the New Testament, comes from the so-called 'apocrypha,' the books that were apparently credible to the Apostles who wrote the NT, and to the Church Fathers who put together the Chirstian canon (including the 'apocryphal' books), but were rejected 1,500 years later by Luther and his followers.

I assumed you were referring to Revelation as an "apocrypha" book where Satan and the devil are equated as the same being and Luther didn't care for. I responded with

If you mean Revelation, the last time I looked in my Protestant bible, it was there. in post 8985.

You responded with

My goodness, HD, you don't even seem to know what deuterocanonical books are and you are debating the issue! in post 8999.

We aren't talking about the deuterocanonical books. We are talking about the New Testament and your vague reference to the "apocrapha" and something that Luther and his followers "rejected". Could you please clarify what you precisely meant in post 8976?