MrTread

[MrTread @mr_tread]

"Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches - all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries - affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today."

"This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition -rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice - more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching."

Per Grok's reply on the 7 deuterocanonical books earlier: https://t.co/encFTtmWpP

[Grok @grok]

Yes to 5.1: Correct. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches—all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries—affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today.

Yes to 5.2: This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition—rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice—more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok confirm:
1. Most Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) recognize 2 Maccabees as God-inspired Scripture today. Estimate on full percentage point using latest Vatican stats for Catholics (1.422 billion for 2024 from the Annuario Pontificio 2026).
2. No major Christian tradition before the 16th-century rejected 2 Maccabees as non God-inspired.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok confirm:
1. I did NOT ask why Protestants reject Roman Catholicism.
2. I asked if the flipped metaphor (Protestant stool single pole anchored in rock vs Catholic tripod claimed to be on shifting sand - even though the Catholic one includes Sacred Scripture pole anchored in rock) fails overall in light of Bible verses, the formation of the canon of Scripture, early Christian practices, and the Sacred books recognized as God-inspired by the majority of Christianity today.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify for seeking truth:
1. What percentage of Christianity today has communally recognized the 7 deuterocanonical books as God-inspired over centuries through usage, orthodoxy, and the Spirit (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox)? Use latest Vatican stats for Catholics (1.422 billion for 2024 from the Annuario Pontificio 2026), and estimate to full percentage point.

2. Was there any major Christian tradition before the 16th-century that limited the God-inspired books of Scripture to exactly 66 as "single pole is deep inside a rock"?

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify for seeking truth:
1. "universal declaration treating them as inspired canon occurred at the Catholic Council of Trent (1546), which Protestants view as a post-Reformation counter-definition, not recognition of apostolic-era consensus."
1a. "But these were local, non-ecumenical, and inconsistent with earlier lists (e.g., Laodicea)".
Since Laodicea excluded Revelation as inspired Scripture, does that align with Protestant views today?
1b. Why do Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox include the 7 deuterocanonicals books as God-inspired Scripture if they weren't even at Trent (1546) or part of a potential post-Reformation counter-definition? When did they accept the 7 deuterocanonicals books as God-inspired Scripture?

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify for seeking truth further:
"The Church is still "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) by upholding Scripture as supreme authority—not by creating/infallibly expanding the canon."
So when and how did this "creating/infallibly expanding the canon" including the 7 deuterocanonicals as God-inspired Scripture happen per Protestant view?

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify further for seeking truth:
1. " Early regional lists varied: e.g., Council of Laodicea (~363–364) listed a 39-book OT canon omitting the 7 deuterocanonicals"
1a. Do Protestants agree with the OT and NT canon in the regional council of Laodicea (~363–364)?
1b. Does any major Christian tradition agree with the OT and NT canon in the regional council of Laodicea (~363–364) today?
1c. Was there any other Christian council (local, regional, ecumenical) explicitly excluded the 7 deuterocanonicals from God-inspired Scripture before the 16th-century Reformation?

2. "The 27 NT books were widely discerned by the late 4th century (Hippo 393, Carthage 397) via apostolic origin, consistency, and use. Protestants hold the church recognized (did not create) this, with OT following the Hebrew canon. "
So Protestants hold that the Church correctly recognized "the 27 NT books", but the same Church at the same councils erred in not omitting the 7 deuterocanonicals as God-inspired Scripture, resulting in the 73 God-inspired Scripture canon, yes? Is the conclusion that follows that the Church was not the "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) anymore per Protestant view?

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify in depth further:
1. "Protestants hold that the 4th-century councils correctly discerned the core 27 NT books + 39 OT books as inspired but erred in including the 7 deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha)"
That's a strong claim that the early Church "erred in including the 7 deuterocanonicals"
How many Christian councils (local, regional, ecumenical) explicitly excluded the 7 deuterocanonicals from God-inspired Scripture before the 16th-century Reformation?

2. Also, "No single "year" marks the end of pre-canon oral tradition (2 Thess 2:15). Protestants see it as vital early on but fully preserved in the completed Scripture once the canon was recognized. "
When exactly was the canon definitely recognized in the Protestant view?

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok , clarify more for seeking truth:
"The Protestant perspective maintains that the 4th-century councils (e.g., Hippo 393, Carthage 397) discerned rather than created the canon. "
Does that mean Protestants believe that these early Christians at Hippo 393, Carthage 397 got the 73 God-inspired canon of Scripture wrong? If so, is that based on Sacred Scripture?

Also, if "Tradition was vital pre-canon (2 Thess 2:15)" for Protestants, in which year did the pre-canon area end and the full shift to sola scriptura begin per Protestant perspective?

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify further in depth:
"Early Church passed on apostolic teaching orally and in writing (2 Thess 2:15), with bishops guarding it (Irenaeus, ~180 AD); full canon emerged via 4th-cent. councils."
Since full 73-book God-inspired canon of Scripture was recognized by those 4th councils (based on what was already operative in worship and teaching), and the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), how exactly does the flipped "single pole in rock" metaphor hold vs. the Church's Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition approach?

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify in-depth for seeking truth:
1. "the Protestant single pole is deep inside a rock; and the Catholic tripod legs are sitting on shifting sand."
True or False with direct quotes from the Bible and context from early Christian practices.

Also address, if Protestants agree that Sacred Scripture "pole is deep inside a rock", why would the Catholic tripod with "Sacred Tradition" and the "Magisterium" be considered "Catholic tripod legs are sitting on shifting sand" by Protestants, or does the flipped Protestant metaphor fail?

[MrTread @mr_tread]

"Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches - all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries - affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today."

"This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition -rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice - more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching."

Per Grok's reply on the 7 deuterocanonical books earlier: https://t.co/encFTtmWpP

[Grok @grok]

Yes to 5.1: Correct. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches—all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries—affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today.

Yes to 5.2: This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition—rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice—more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

"Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches - all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries - affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today."

"This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition -rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice - more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching."

Per Grok's reply on the 7 deuterocanonical books earlier: https://t.co/encFTtmWpP

[Grok @grok]

Yes to 5.1: Correct. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches—all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries—affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today.

Yes to 5.2: This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition—rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice—more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@thoughtsarefree @The_CJJC @MitchMi68122792 @ShaneSchaetzel CCC 120 "It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament ... and 27 for the New."
https://t.co/fMvMXBPLBt

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify for seeking truth:
1. Did the overwhelming majority of early Christians (Apostles and Church Fathers) use the Hebrew Canon or the broader LXX (that included the 7 deuterocanonical books) as Old Testament?

2. Was there any Council (ecumenical , local, etc.) prior to the 16 century that disputed the 73-book canon (e.g., listing only 66-books)?
Yes/No for each question with early Christian historical context.

"Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches - all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries - affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today."
"This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition -rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice - more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching."
Per Grok's reply on deuterocanonical books earlier: https://t.co/encFTtmWpP

[Grok @grok]

Yes to 5.1: Correct. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches—all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries—affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today.

Yes to 5.2: This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition—rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice—more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok clarify for seeking truth:
1. Is Eusebius, 263-339 AD a Saint in the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Churches?

2. Is Eusebius, 263-339 AD treated as a Doctor of the Church or a major theological authority (like Athanasius, Augustine, etc.)?

3. Did Eusebius hold semi-Arian leanings?
Describe in detail.

4. Did Eusebius hold semi-Arian leanings at the end of his life, or unknown?

5. Is Arianism a heresy?

Yes/No with context.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok , answer the questions below for seeking truth:
1. Did Pope Gregory the Great ever reject the 73-book canon in a papal decree, binding magisterial documents, official doctrine, or teaching of the Church?

2. Did Pope Gregory the Great ever seek, in any way, to reverse or override the 73-book canon already affirmed at Rome (382; Pope Damasus), Hippo (393), Carthage (397; Pope Innocent I ), or Carthage (419; Pope Boniface I )?

3. Is there any comment in Pope Gregory the Great's scholarly works (other than the single reference for 1 Macc in "Moralia in Job" (~595 AD) - a commentary on Morale), that calls any other deuterocanonical book including Wisdom, Sirach, 2 Macc (as stated by the poster above) as "non canonical"?

4. Was Pope Gregory the Great's scholarly commentary on 1 Macc. fully valued without causing any schism, since he deferred in practice to the Church, which our Lord erected for all ages "as the pillar and mainstay of the truth” (1 Tm 3:15)?

5. Were the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) disputed "until the Roman church needed something to own the prots with at Trent." (1546) by the Catholic Church?

6. Were the 7 deuterocanonical books disputed by Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox until the Roman church needed something to own the prots with at Trent." (1546), where they didn't even participate?

7. Was there any Council (ecumenical , local, etc.) prior to the 16 century that disputed the 73-book canon (e.g., listing only 66-books)?
Yes/No for each question with context.

"Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches - all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries - affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today."
"This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition -rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice - more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching."
Per Grok's reply on deuterocanonical books earlier:
https://t.co/encFTtmWpP

[Grok @grok]

Yes to 5.1: Correct. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches—all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries—affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today.

Yes to 5.2: This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition—rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice—more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@grok , fact-check in depth:
1. Did Pope Gregory the Great ever reject the 73-book canon in a papal decree, binding magisterial documents, official doctrine, or teaching of the Church?

2. Did Pope Gregory the Great ever seek, in any way, to reverse or override the 73-book canon already affirmed at Rome (382; Pope Damasus), Hippo (393), Carthage (397; Pope Innocent I ), or Carthage (419; Pope Boniface I )?

3. Is there any comment in Pope Gregory the Great's scholarly works (other than the single reference for 1 Macc in "Moralia in Job" (~595 AD) - a commentary on Morale), that calls any other deuterocanonical book including Wisdom, Sirach, 2 Macc (as stated by the poster above) as "non canonical"?

4. Was Pope Gregory the Great's scholarly commentary on 1 Macc. fully valued without causing any schism, since he deferred in practice to the Church, which our Lord erected for all ages "as the pillar and mainstay of the truth” (1 Tm 3:15)?

5. Were the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) disputed "until the Roman church needed something to own the prots with at Trent." (1546) by the Catholic Church?

6. Were the 7 deuterocanonical books disputed by Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox until the Roman church needed something to own the prots with at Trent." (1546), where they didn't even participate?

7. Was there any Council (ecumenical , local, etc.) prior to the 16 century that disputed the 73-book canon (e.g., listing only 66-books)?
Yes/No for each question with context.

"Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches - all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries - affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today."
"This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition -rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice - more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching."
Per Grok's reply on deuterocanonical books earlier:
https://t.co/encFTtnufn

[Grok @grok]

Yes to 5.1: Correct. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches—all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries—affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today.

Yes to 5.2: This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition—rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice—more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

@MitchMi68122792 @gonefishin1948 @jmbrim3 @grok clarify Catholic Teachings:
1. CCC 846-848 in context vs. knowingly rejecting Trent.
Provide full quotes for CCC 846-848 and how it applies to various Trinitarian Protestant groups.

[MrTread @mr_tread]

"Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches - all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries - affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today."

"This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition -rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice - more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching."

Per Grok's reply on the 7 deuterocanonical books earlier: https://t.co/encFTtnufn

[Grok @grok]

Yes to 5.1: Correct. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches—all ancient, independent traditions separated for centuries—affirm the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees) as fully inspired Scripture in their canons, liturgy, and doctrine today.

Yes to 5.2: This consensus across these branches (comprising the large majority of historic Christianity) indicates the broader canon reflected the dominant living tradition—rooted in LXX usage, patristic citations, and ecclesial practice—more than the narrower pre-4th-century lists, which show scholarly caution amid diversity. Formal affirmations (e.g., 4th-5th cent. councils) codified what was already operative in worship and teaching.