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.

**Are there examples of Marian Apparitions to Orthodox faithful, Protestants or non-christians?** After reading this [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/106340/25495) (**Best arguments against Marian apparitions?**), it got me wondering if there are examples of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, appearing to the Orthodox, Protestants (or other denominations) or non-christians? I am desiring an answer that has examples of all three fields if possible.

Syriac Christianity (as well as with other oriental orthodoxy denominations) today use Arabic as their liturgical language. It is known that they have been using Arabic since the times of Muslim invasions, as early as second half of 8th Century (as suggested here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7304/when-did-arabic-enter-into-usage-as-a-liturgical-language-among-orthodox-christi , *The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque* by Sidney Griffith also mentioned the same). But why did they turn into Arabic instead of keeping Aramaic as their liturgical language? Is it because: - Arabic became the *lingua franca* and it is easier to reach common people (non-priest) if they use Arabic instead of Aramaic. - If it is so, I wonder why? Was the influence of Arabs so strong that they have to use Arabic? Or was the use of Aramaic banned during the Muslims rule? Why can't they maintain the usage of Aramaic, as the Muslims do (until now) with Arabic as their liturgical language? - Also, if this was the case, doesn't this mean Syriac Christianity was the first Christianity to "localized" their language to every day man, not Protestant Christianity? - Syriac Christian priests were involved in intense theological debates and discussions with the dominationg Muslim theologians. So they use Arabic to make it easier for their Muslim friends to understand their points. - Or maybe both? Or are there any other reasons? I hope I layed out my question/explanation clear, since English is not my mother tounge.

I see Eastern Orthodox keyboard warriors commonly posting memes, bite size apologetics and propaganda against Catholicism which make some variation on the claim "4 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Eastern Orthodoxy. You should too". I was wondering how much veracity is behind this claim. I was under the impression that the Patriarch of Alexandria wasn't even in communion with the Eastern Orthodox church at all. I thought he was a Copt and a member of the Oriental Orthodox communion instead? Likewise for Jerusalem and Antioch. I thought that the only Patriarch of the original Pentarchy that is an actual Eastern Orthodox is the Patriarch of Constantinople? My understanding is that 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Catholicism, 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Eastern Orthodoxy, and 3 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Oriental Orthodoxy. Please help me understand this situation further?

In the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church's Old Testament canon, they include three books of Maccabees , which are unrelated to the three Greek books of Maccabees in the Eastern Orthodox OT canon (two of which are in the Catholic canon). I'm curious how this situation came about. Are there ancient or pre-modern sources which note the difference? Wikipedia floats a hypothesis that the Ethiopian Maccabees were composed in the late medieval period. Is there good evidence for this? Why would someone create these books and put them in the canon?

The Oriental Orthodox Church is the non-Chalcedonian branch formed as a result of the Chalcedonian controversy (see [*GotQuestion* article](https://www.gotquestions.org/Oriental-Orthodox-Church.html)) . I am curious where the name "Oriental" comes from for them, as this means "eastern" in Latin, and is therefore confusingly similar to the Eastern Orthodox. Most of them are Coptic (Egyptian) and Ethiopian, which makes them to the south of the Eastern Orthodox parts of the world, not to the east. So why was the term "Oriental" chosen?

According to the Church Fathers and the Oriental Orthodox Church, was the Blessed Virgin Mary's flesh corruptible?

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians usually cite the authority of tradition in order to refute Protestants on any point where we have disagreement. Many Protestants also like to cite tradition; for instance, Luther and Calvin were adamant that they were not innovators, but simply returning to the doctrines of the ancient church which the Roman Catholics had drifted away from. However, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox point to institutional continuity and the idea of Apostolic Succession in order to argue that Protestant churches are not legitimate churches. Similar appeals to tradition and apostolic succession are made by the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East and other splinter groups. For the purposes of this question, "traditionalist" refers to those groups which emphasize the Sacred Tradition as an additional authority beside Scripture, and emphasize the institutional continuity back to the apostles. Thus the principle branches of traditionalists are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. These groups are all mutually not in communion with one another and have profound disagreements. **How do they discern which tradition is the correct tradition?** This is an *epistemological* question; while the particular disagreements among them are interesting and may serve as examples, I want to know by what methods traditionalists determine which tradition is correct. From my limited understanding, I see a lot of arguments that amount to begging the question. For instance, you might appeal to ecumenical councils, but how do you determine which councils are ecumenical? Only the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381) are recognized by all four traditionalist branches. (And it would appear from reading Wikipedia's article that even within a particular tradition, there may be different opinions as to which councils are "ecumenical".) Or you might appeal to the authority of the Pope, but that is exactly the point at issue. How do you know that the tradition of following the Pope is the correct tradition?

Sorry if I'm a bit wordy, I'm a bit new to apologetics and am trying to understand church history. This is something I struggle to understand a bit. With Catholicism, you have the Pope as a unifying force and a lot of ecumenical councils that lay out the rules of infallibility. So it's usually easy to determine if someone agrees with "Catholic theology" or not. With Lutherans and other Protestant groups, the rules are less strict, and they tend to see "the church" as more universal. But then there's Orthodox, a group that believes they are the one true church and even in some form of "no salvation outside the church." But how does the Orthodox church decide which teachings one must accept to be Orthodox? Oriental Orthodoxy accepts three councils as infallible, and I think most Orthodox accept seven. But I don't really see explicit Orthodox doctrine on which parts of these councils are infallible the way that later Catholic councils have. (The canons of the councils themselves that I've read don't use the word "infallible", and Lutherans see the councils as authoritative but below scripture.) Orthodoxy has a specific view of the trinity and a specific view on salvation that differ from Lutheranism, despite both groups generally agreeing with those councils. **So what it it that determines these Orthodox beliefs, if they don't consider anything outside 3-7 ecumenical councils and scripture to be infallible?** If Orthodox consider their view of the trinity to be fallible, why? Doesn't the Catholic view also follow the Nicene creed? As an application of my question, how does the Orthodox church decide what the "one true church" is when making statements like "no salvation outside the church"? If Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same church, despite doctrinal disagreements, then what makes Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism not the same church, despite many similarities? In the early church, weren't there different congregations with bishops that were considered the same church, despite having different practices? Where's the line, according to Orthodoxy?

[The biblical description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans#Biblical_versions) of the origin of the Samaritans is that they were moved into Samaria as part of the forced population transfer by the Assyrians after their conquest of the Kingdom of Israel. The Samaritans themselves hold that they descend from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient Samaria, and split theologically at the time of the biblical priest Eli and who remained after the Assyrian deportations. [Modern genetic studies](https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20077) support the Samaritan narrative that they descend from indigenous Israelites: > Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. What do the large Christian organisations such as the Catholic Church teach about the origins of the Samaritans?

In the Latin Church, the [Liturgical Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_Movement) and the Second Vatican Council resulted in broad liturgical changes. To what extent has liturgy changed in the Eastern churches during the past 50 to 100 years? I am interested in any or all of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Catholic.

If a woman is Roman Catholic, and a man is from Kerala, from the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church, and they wish to marry, does the woman need to convert to Syrian Orthodoxy? According to the Syrian Oriental Orthodox Church, can she marry him while remaining a Roman Catholic and planning to raise their children as Catholics?

It is clear that the Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are much closer both theologically and geographically than the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. **But how different are the first two?** I am asking this as a member of the Orthodox Church who wants to know more about the Assyrian Church of the East. For example, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel of the Assyrian Church of the East, who is popular nowadays, said in [this recent video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yxEiv1pjC4) at minute 0:10 that he is an "orthodox". Did he mean that he is *theologically* orthodox? I want to emphasize that **this question is about the differences between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orthodox Church**. The quality and the validity of Mar Mari Emmanuel's speeches and the topic discussed in the video are *not* part of this question. All I can say is that I appreciate very much this man and his teachings. Also, the Catholic Church and the Pope are not part of this question By differences, I mean the **theological, dogmatic and tradition aspects**. For example: - *View on Jesus's Mother*. In orthodoxy, she is a very important figure and we pray to her very often and we call her "The one giving birth to God". I wonder how she is regarded in the Assyrian Church of the East - In Assyrian Church of the East, does the *Holy Spirit come from The Father* as in Orthodoxy, or from The Father and The Son as in Catholicism? - *View on divorce*. In Orthodoxy, divorce is not recommended and is often considered a sin. However, unlike the Catholic church, the Orthodox church allows divorces in extreme cases such as adultery, domestic violence and other things that ruin the marriage. What is the Assyrian Church's view on divorce? - *Are priests allowed to marry?* In Orthodoxy, not only that priests can marry, but *must be married* to become priests through the Holy "Xeirotonía". How is it in the Assyrian church? - Is *iconography* allowed in the Assyrian Church? In other aspects, I see clear similarities between the Assyrian Church and the Orthodox Church such as the priest's clothing and the white long priest's beard.

The Orthodox Church believed and affirm that there was not a set canon during the church, thus is why they have an unmodified canon. But the Orthodox church has a much more larger canon than both the Roman Catholics and the Protestant, believing that books like 3 Maccabees were scripture, but did any of the Early Church Fathers use the Orthodox canon and did they ever quote form this? (This can be any Church Fathers from 300-400 AD onwards.)

Can there be valid Apostolic Succession in multiple churches, such as Orthodox, Anglican, Church of the East, and Coptic Church? If so, how do Catholic church reconcile this with it's belief in being the only one true church?

Being a Syrian Orthodox, I have a doubt... Will my sind be forgiven if I get HUSOYO/(***absolution prayer only with no confession***) instead of confession of sins? I usually confess once in a month but the weeks in between, if I get HUSOYO will it forgive my sins?

I know that Zerachiel and Sariel are both rather tied to Judaism as they are most prevalently found in the book of Enoch. In most denominations of christianity this book is not recognized as a canon, except for some oriental orthodox churches, which is why this question asks for the view from that specific branch. Still, they seem to both be represented by the name *Saraqael* through various texts despite having different characteristics. I want to know this because Zerachiel seems to be a Seraphim and they both seem to be watchers. (Sariel might be a Seraphim too?) Additional confusion was caused by references seemingly mixing up Sahariel (Hebrew: *god is my moon*) with Sariel (Hebrew: *god is my ruler*) and the existence of a Wikipedia article for both Zerachiel (Hebrew: *god has remembered*) and Sariel . So are the angels called Zerachiel and Sariel the same, or did they just happen to share a similar name and rank?

I realize that monothelitism arose in the context of Chalcedonian dyophysitism, and that non-Chalcedonians have not been forced to deal with the distinction of monothelitism versus dyothelitism historically. According to this answer the heresy of monothelitism according to the Catholic church may essentially be attributed to making our Lord Jesus only appear human, in effect similar to monophysitism. I only recently started to learn about the history of the church, and lack formal education in the matter, but I wonder if dyothelitism does not risk becoming similar to Nestorianism. Simply put "two wills" sounds to me like it necessitates two *separate* persons. The Catholic church clearly disagrees, since they do not consider themselves Nestorian (note that this question is not about why the Catholic church disagrees). On the other hand miaphysites have traditionally considered Chalcedonian dyophysitism as Nestorian heresy. According to this answer and what I have been able to find elswhere, the difference between dyophysitism and miaphysitism is however smaller than one may initially be led to believe, lying mainly in *how* the full humanity and full divinity of our Lord should be considered. Would miaphysites consider dyothelitism an expression of Nestorian heresy in dyophysitism, when confronted with the question in theory? Since, to my knowledge, no corresponding issue has been raised within miaphysitism, I suppose there is an (oriental) orthodox view. It seems reasonable to me that since in Christ the divine and the man exist unseparably without blending, diluting, or diminishing; there should be one will that is an expression of this perfect union. Is this correct according to miaphysites?

There's obviously a despite between Roman Catholics and Protestantism on which constitutes the canon with Roman Catholics having the Deuterocanonical's as scripture (ie one and two Maccabees), but the Orthodox Church has a much larger canon, in which contains three Maccabees, why does the Orthodox Church have a much larger canon than the Roman Catholics?

If the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter, why isn't the Bishop of Antioch the pope? Before Peter went to Rome, he was the Patriarch of Antioch. Shouldn't his successors in Antioch have the papal powers instead? P.S - I saw this question on a subreddit and it didn't have any good responses.