This argument from redeemed zoomer 's twitter account. What is the catholic response to it? > How can you infallibly know whether the true church is the Catholic > Church or the Orthodox Church? > > If you can use fallible historical reason to determine that, then I > can use fallible historical reason to determine the canon of Scripture

The Book of Jubilees is included in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and known from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It retells the events of Genesis and part of Exodus, but with significant expansions, reinterpretations, and a highly structured chronological system based on 49-year "jubilee" cycles. Does the Book of Jubilees imply that the Genesis and Exodus accounts are disorganized, incomplete, or in need of correction? I'm especially interested in how this is understood within Christian theology, rather than purely literary or historical analysis.

> A short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament > (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and is there attributed to "Enoch the > Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8). It is argued that all the writers of > the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in > thought and diction. — Wikipedia So why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical by major Christian denominations?

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.

In the Gospel of John, the term "Jews" appears significantly more often than in the Synoptic Gospels — 66 times in John compared to 5 in Matthew, 6 in Mark, and 4 in Luke. In the Gospel of John, there are about 31 verses in which Jews are portrayed in a negative light, such as in John 8:42-56: > 42 Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love > me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, > but he sent me. > > 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my > word. > > 44 **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye > will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the > truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he > speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. > > 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. > > 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do > ye not believe me? > > 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, > because **ye are not of God**. > > 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that > thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? > > 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and > **ye do dishonour me**. > > 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and > judgeth. > > 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall > never see death. > > 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. > Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my > saying, he shall never taste of death. > > 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the > prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? > > 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my > Father that honoureth me; **of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 > Yet ye have not known him;** but I know him: and if I should say, I > know him not, I shall be a **liar like unto you**: but I know him, and > keep his saying. > > 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was > glad. The occurrences are detailed below: Note: If you edit the question, please keep the numbered list Matthew 1) Matthew 2:2 2) Matthew 27:11 3) Matthew 27:29 4) Matthew 27:37 5) Matthew 28:15 Mark 1) Mark 7:3 2) Mark 15:2 3) Mark 15:9 4) Mark 15:12 5) Mark 15:18 6) Mark 15:26 Luke 1) Luke 7:3 2) Luke 23:3 3) Luke 23:37 4) Luke 23:38 John Note: Negative verses are reproduced 1) John 1:19 2) John 2:6 3) John 2:13 4) John 2:18 5) John 2:20 6) John 3:1 7) John 3:25 8) John 4:9 9) John 4:22 10) John 5:1 11) John 5:10 12) John 5:15 13-n1) John 5:16 "And therefore did **the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him**, because he had done these things on the sabbath day" 14-n2) John 5:18 "Therefore **the Jews sought the more to kill him**, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." 15) John 6:4 16-n3) John 6:41 "**The Jews then murmured at him**, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven." 17) John 6:52 18-n4) John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because **the Jews sought to kill him**." 19) John 7:2 20) John 7:11 21-n5) John 7:13 "Howbeit **no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.**" 22) John 7:15 23) John 7:35 24) John 8:22 25) John 8:31 26-n6-n11) John 8:42-48 "Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, **ye believe me not**. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, **why do ye not believe me?** He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because **ye are not of God**. Then **answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?**" 27-n12) John 8:52 "**Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.** Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." 28-n13) John 8:57-59 "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. **Then took they up stones to cast at him**: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 29-n14) John 9:18 "**But the Jews did not believe concerning him**, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight." 30-n15) John 9:22 " These words spake his parents, **because they feared the Jew: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue**." 31) John 10:19 32) John 10:24 33-n16) John 10:31 "Then **the Jews took up stones again to stone him**." 34-n17) John 10:33 " **The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy**; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." 35-n18) John 11:8 "His disciples say unto him, Master, **the Jews of late sought to stone thee**; and goest thou thither again?" 36) John 11:19 37) John 11:31 38) John 11:33 39) John 11:36 40) John 11:45 41-n19) John 11:53-54 " **Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews**; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples." 42) John 11:55 43) John 12:9 44) John 12:11 45) John 13:33 46-n20) John 18:12 "**Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him**," 47-n21) John 18:14 "Now Caiaphas was he, **which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people**." 48) John 18:20 49-n22) John 18:31 "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. **The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death**:" 50) John 18:33 51-n23) John 18:35 "Pilate answered, **Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me**: what hast thou done?" 52-n24) John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, **then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews**: but now is my kingdom not from hence." 53-54-n25) John 18:38-40 "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, **he went out again unto the Jews**, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that **I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?** **Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas**. Now Barabbas was a robber." 55) John 19:3 56-n26) John 19:7 "**The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die**, because he made himself the Son of God." 57-n27) John 19:12 "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: **but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend**: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." 58) John 19:14 59) John 19:19 60) John 19:20 61-n28) John 19:21 "**Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews**." 62-n29) John 19:31 "**The Jews therefore**, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) **besought Pilate that their legs might be broken**, and that they might be taken away." 63-n30) John 19:38 "**And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews**, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus." 64) John 19:40 65) John 19:42 66-n31) John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when **the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews**, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

The *Deuterocanonical books* were included in the Septuagint, but not the Hebrew Bible. They are mostly included in the Catholic Old Testament, but not in the Protestant one. I understand the choice was made by Luther, who called the deuterocanonical books > Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read Why weren't the deuterocanonical books considered equal to the Holy Scriptures?

One of the common criticisms of *Sola Scriptura* (meaning that Scripture is the only infallible rule for Christians) is that the canon list is not found in the Bible itself, so Protestants rely on Scripture being infallible without infallibly knowing what is infallible. I hear this especially from Catholics, but I also hear it from Eastern Orthodox. Anyway, I don't want to debate that point here; I'm just mentioning it to give context. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that in addition to Scripture, the ecumenical councils are also infallible. As I understand it, local synods and councils are not regarded as infallible by either tradition. For the Catholics, this doesn't threaten the integrity of the canon of Scripture, as it was defined for them by the Council of Trent. However, regarding Eastern Orthodoxy, the canon was not defined by any of the seven ecumenical councils. Instead, they follow the decision of the Council in Trullo (692), a.k.a. the Quinisext Council, which was reaffirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672). However, neither of these is one of the seven ecumenical councils. I know that the Quinisext Council may be seen as an emendation of the decisions of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, but is it therefore regarded as infallible despite not being itself an ecumenical council? This canon list is different from those of the Council of Laodicea (364) and the Council of Rome (382), both local councils (though admittedly the provenance of the preserved canon lists from those councils is disputed). So my question is: **Despite not being defined by any of the seven ecumenical councils, does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a belief in an infallible canon list for Scripture?** If so, how is it known to be infallible?

Which books functioned as the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East ? For example, what would they have been in Mongolia in the days of Genghis Khan ? The books of the Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox New Testament were fixed after the Church of the East split from the other branches of Christianity. So I wonder what became the set of the standard books for them.

An answer to this question, [*How do Protestants make claims to follow scripture and ignore the traditions of the ancient church which produced the scriptures?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104738/how-do-protestants-make-claims-to-follow-scripture-and-ignore-the-traditions-of/104743#104743&:~:text=the%20Spirit%20is%20still%20witnessing,leave%20the%20Catholic%20Church) , concerning the difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles, contains: > … the Spirit is still witnessing to Catholics about the canon. If the true canon is the smaller Protestant canon, then some Catholics would be persuaded by the Spirit to leave the Catholic Church, > … > Likewise, if the Protestant canon is wrong, then many people will feel the Spirit's witnessing to a larger canon. Another question, [*Which doctrines are based solely on the Deuterocanonical books?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7369/which-doctrines-are-based-solely-on-the-apocrypha) , is about doctrines that Protestants are missing out on by not accepting the Apocrypha, corresponding to the second case above. This question is about the first case: **What Protestant doctrines are refuted only by the [Deuterocanonical books](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books)?**

A recent highly upvoted answer on a different question sparked this question to me. It is at the bottom. Searching found this similar but different question I will quote the parts that sparked the question here. I as always will leave the author unnamed. (I'm not here to put anyone on "blast" so to speak) > ...we don’t blindly accept what men claim. We follow Acts 17:11 where the Bereans were commended because “they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” > >**If it wasn’t done during the first century when Christ Jesus established his church** – not a building, not an organisation but the body of believers – **then we reject it.** We follow Scripture. > >That, in a nutshell, is how Protestants deal with the claims of men who lived after the death of Jesus and the apostles. If their teachings and claims are found in Scripture, then we accept that as our authority. **What we reject is the teachings and traditions of men who have added to the word of God.** I assume "add" would also include "remove or change". To understand the spirit of the words written here. Edit: It has come to my attention that the above is likely to be incorrect with regards to how protestants do things. This makes the question based on a misunderstanding I thought it was accurate. Knowing this resolves the issue of the main question, and leaves the "bonus questions" remaining. --- Immediately I find myself wondering how the logic can possibly work here. Because we have several problems that are immediately apparent. (As noted here in another question, but I'm not focused on Sola Scriptura like that question is) Facts. 1. The Scriptures were starting to be canonized maybe as early as 382AD (Rome) or 393 (Hippo). This does not mean the early church had no scriptures, but there was much that was "repeated" and also "not divinely inspired" (Protogospels, multiple letters, gnostic false scriptures... etc) This process was formally completed in the 6th Ecumenical Council Canon 2 **in 692AD** 2. Who decided which texts were "divinely inspired" and "good for worship"? The Church fathers did *after the 1st century*. > Edit: I just remembered the local councils at Carthage (255 AD). So the process started even earlier in some formal sense. --- Claims from above combined with facts. 1. Protestants only accept things within Scripture. 2. Protestants reject things after the 1st century. (So they do accept some "direct contact tradition") 3. The New Testament and Bible was starting to be canonized from multiple texts in multiple councils starting in 382AD. And at this point the protestants somehow accept the Biblical Canon. Though they seem to have a problem with the original canon list. Even Luther wished parts of the Bible didn't exist (see here... ) --- #### How do protestants, accept* the given tradition of the Bible, despite it being canonized by the traditions of men after the 1st century? - Bonus question: How do they reconcile changing the Bible from the original canon of 692AD? - Bonus question: How is this not cherry picking which tradition you like? (You like scripture, but dislike XYZ)

This question is inspired by part of an answer given to a recent question : > It is God alone who has created the canon, our human responsibility is only to recognise it, which we have done better and worse through history. If someone seeking the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and diligently studying the Bible arrived at the conclusion that, say, Song of Solomon, or Esther, or James, was not inspired, would it be possible for that person to accept Sola Scriptura AND accept a 65 book canon? Why or why not? *** This question is seeking the perspective of those who believe in Sola Scriptura, and I'm primarily interested in the answer to the 2nd part of the question (why or why not?)

1 Kings 11:41 says: >Now the rest of the acts of Solomon and whatever he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? What is the biblical and historical background to this "book of the acts of Solomon" and have any manuscripts been found to support the existence of additional information about what Solomon did? Or are such writings apocryphal?

Okay so I was looking around on google for some answers about where some of the demon names that are "Biblical" came from, and I came across the Testament of Solomon . It isn't in the Bible from what I can tell. (It may be, if so, can I have some references?). It is an account of how Solomon enslaved demons using Michael's ring and made them rebuild the temple. There's something about all of this that just feels off. Does anyone know if its considered true by the majority or if its just considered untrue?

When the New Testament was written1, were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John already considered Scripture? 1 Acts - Revelation. Obviously there is overlap in when these were written (they are not included in the NT in chronological order), but were the known Gospels considered Scripture?

My impression is that Christ cults were pretty diverse in the first two centuries following Jesus' death, including Jewish and non-Jewish variations, as well as Roman and Eastern, but if Paul became authoritative early on, then I would have to change my views on the scope of that diversity. It's obvious that once an ecclesiastical council determined that the letters officially belonged in the Bible, i.e, they were canonized, they became orthodox. But there's a lot of room between general and official acceptance.

In *Systematic Theology* chapter 3 "The Canon of Scripture", Wayne Grudem says > It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). (This is on page 59 in the 1st edition.) What does he mean by this? He is certainly not unaware of the Council of Carthage (397), because he cites this just 5 pages later for its decision on the NT canon. However, the Council of Carthage's Old Testament canon includes all of the Apocrypha found in modern Catholic Bibles (except Baruch). Is this an oversight on Grudem's part? Or is there some qualitative difference between the decision of the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent that makes the latter an official declaration while the former not? *Note:* Grudem also does not mention the Council of Rome (382) anywhere that I can find, which was the first council to discuss the canon and included the Apocrypha as well, but he may be following the scholarship which regards the canon list of the *Decretum Gelasianum* not to be genuinely derived from the Council of Rome. If so, then he would have no reason to mention it as no direct evidence of the Council of Rome's decisions exist.

Which books in the Catholic Old Testament, precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible? I understand for example that the Books of Macabees isn't part of the Hebrew Bible Canon, but from what I heard, it follows it in time, rather than being rejected from it. So it wouldn't precede it. I know that the Protestant Old Testament Canon is the same one as Jews use today in their Hebrew Bible, and that the Catholic Old Testament Canon has all that plus extra books. So i'm wondering if any books in the Catholic Old Testament are so old in origin that they precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible / canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today(which is in the masoretic tradition)? There is a complexity here also, but one that opens up a possible avenue that help address the question. The Septuagint is so old it even precedes Christianity, and it has a number of books not in the modern Hebrew canon. And furthermore, my understanding is that one skilled in biblical hebrew, and ancient greek, that studies the Septuagint carefully, sees that the underlying text it is translating is slightly different in some places, implying that there was a Hebrew version for it. Further backing that up, my understanding is that in the Judean desert, while there's lots of uniformity, (and particularly uniformity within the Torah), still there are different versions/variations of text for various Hebrew books of the bible, in places here and there, small variations. And it has been viewed(perhaps by Emmanuel Tov?), as there being hebrew proto-septuatint and (of course hebrew), proto-masoretic. Moving from that to books. If there were Hebrew proto-masoretic books not in the masoretic canon of today then perhaps we wouldn't know. But it'd be interesting to know if there are Hebrew proto-septuagint books in the Dead Sea Scrolls / Scrolls from the Judean Desert? And perhaps some of those books in greek form might be in the catholic bible, so would fit what i'm asking of any books in the catholic bible that precede the canonisation of the hebrew bible. But perhaps even without considering the DSS/scrolls of the Judean desert, there might be an answer to if any books of the Catholic Old Testament are known to precede canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today?

Do any Protestant Christian movements/denominations believe that acceptance of the 39 book 'Old Testament/27 book 'New Testament', and **only** those 66 books as scripture is an essential doctrine of faith? Do any Protestant denominations require such a declaration? Why or why not? For instance, is there a theological problem in Protestantism if a clergy member/lay person sincerely believed the academic consensus that the Second Epistle of Peter was not scripture? Or would protestants believe there a problem if the same person sincerely believes that 1/2 Maccabees are scripture?

I recently found out on quora that the Catholic Bible has 73 books; the Orthodox Bible contains 76 or 77 books; the Protestant 66; and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo (Amharic) has 81 books. With these differences, how can all these Bibles be the word of God; if there is no standard version? How does one convince a non-Christian that the Bible is the infallible word of God, when there is no agreement as to what books make up the Bible?

For some time now, I've been profoundly interested in the idiosyncracies of Catholic priest dress - particularly everyday (formal) and choir dress. Due to its uniqueness, in particular the dress of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest canons has piqued my interest. It is my understanding that the formal dress entails a black cassock with blue buttons and trimming + pellegrina, with a blue fascia for ALL the priests, superiors and the general (no zucchetto or pectoral though, as that would make them look too much like bishops or cardinals). Or is it just the general, and the lower-ranking canons wear theirs with no pellegrina, or completely black? Or perhaps, is the privilege of wearing hte blue-buttoned cassock in everyday situations tied to Monsignor status, such as Chaplain of His Holiness, which the Prior General happens to hold? Regarding the choir dress - it is said that it consists of a cassock, rochet, manteletta and mozzetta + biretta & distinctory. However, most available images (both photos and illustrations) also seem to include a second cape of sorts that encompasses the priest's figure even more widely and seems to be worn right under the mozzetta. While the Prior General is demonstrated to wear this part in full blue in the schematic, Gilles Wach seems to wear it black, in this photo for instance: This cape of sorts is not described anywhere (I can't find it at least). So my question is: is this part a ferraiulo? It seems to be a completely separate layer from the manteletta, which is directly below it. Whether it is indeed a ferraiulo or not, then it would seem that these canons' choir dress is the most extensive and elaborate out of all Catholic clergy, combining the manteletta with the mozzetta, and even throwing in this extra cape for good measure. But I would like to be sure what exactly it is. Thanks!