Where in the Canon Bible does RCC get their doctrines from?

[Thinkingstuff]

You are not following my thinking correctly. In John 5:39, The Lord Jesus designated as Scripture the same O.T. that the Jews of that time were using. It is the fact that whenever He quotes from those Scriptures, the quotes are from the 39 books we know today as the O.T.
You may believe that in Matthew 6:19-20, our Lord is quoting from the apocrypha, but there is nothing in His words to indicate that He is quoting anything.. In Hebrews 11:35, the writer cites a historical event. There is no reason to suppose that he is quoting from 2 Maccabees, any more than if I mention something from World War 2, you should suppose that I am quoting Winston Churchill because he wrote a rather extensive book about it.

How do you know it was only those 39 books? Or less than those 39 books. How are you certain apart from the Talmud which the earlier version from Jerusalem dates to 300 AD and the later version from Babylon in 500 AD? Jesus only list the Law and The Prophets which excludes certain books of the 39 books. Many NT theological views come right out of these books I've mentioned. Even the Dead Sea scrolls has versions of them. To be more appropriate with your WWII reference I might certainly say you are referencing Winston Churchill if you said something to the effect "we will never ever surrender" in mentioning WWII. Not exactly a direct quote but certainly referencing his great speech as are the NT references of the Deuterocanonical books. Apart from the Talmud I see no other place where you can authoritatively say these 39 books. Certainly not from early Christian Tradition.

 

[JonShaff]

How do you know it was only those 39 books? Or less than those 39 books. How are you certain apart from the Talmud which the earlier version from Jerusalem dates to 300 AD and the later version from Babylon in 500 AD? Jesus only list the Law and The Prophets which excludes certain books of the 39 books. Many NT theological views come right out of these books I've mentioned. Even the Dead Sea scrolls has versions of them. To be more appropriate with your WWII reference I might certainly say you are referencing Winston Churchill if you said something to the effect "we will never ever surrender" in mentioning WWII. Not exactly a direct quote but certainly referencing his great speech as are the NT references of the Deuterocanonical books. Apart from the Talmud I see no other place where you can authoritatively say these 39 books. Certainly not from early Christian Tradition.

Some consider Joshua-Kings the Early Prophets or former Prophets.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How do you know it was only those 39 books? Or less than those 39 books. How are you certain apart from the Talmud which the earlier version from Jerusalem dates to 300 AD and the later version from Babylon in 500 AD?

I think you'll find thatas early as AD 79, the Jews who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 came together and confirmed their canon as the 39 books we have today.

Jesus only list the Law and The Prophets which excludes certain books of the 39 books.

When the Lord Jesus uses the term 'the law and the prophets' He is referencing the whole of the OT canon.

Many NT theological views come right out of these books I've mentioned. Even the Dead Sea scrolls has versions of them. To be more appropriate with your WWII reference I might certainly say you are referencing Winston Churchill if you said something to the effect "we will never ever surrender" in mentioning WWII. Not exactly a direct quote but certainly referencing his great speech as are the NT references of the Deuterocanonical books. Apart from the Talmud I see no other place where you can authoritatively say these 39 books. Certainly not from early Christian Tradition.

Let me put this as simply as I can. If you can find me somewhere in the NT where the Lord Jesus says, "Have you never read....?" (e.g. Matthew 21:42) or "As it is written....." (e.g. Mark 7:6); or where Paul says, 'For what does the Scripture say...….?' (e.g. Romans 4:3). Or where the writer to the Hebrews declares, 'Therefore as the Holy Spirit says' (e.g. Hebrews 3:7). If you can find me any such place or similar where the Speaker or writer goes on to quote Maccabees or Jesus the son of Sirach or any other writer of the apocrypha, I will concede your point. Otherwise you are whistling in the dark.

Not everything in the apocrypha is evil or wrong. Some of it is well worth reading (and some of it isn't). But it isn't Scripture.

 

[JonShaff]

I think you'll find thatas early as AD 79, the Jews who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 came together and confirmed their canon as the 39 books we have today.

When the Lord Jesus uses the term 'the law and the prophets' He is referencing the whole of the OT canon.

Let me put this as simply as I can. If you can find me somewhere in the NT where the Lord Jesus says, "Have you never read....?" (e.g. Matthew 21:42) or "As it is written....." (e.g. Mark 7:6); or where Paul says, 'For what does the Scripture say...….?' (e.g. Romans 4:3). Or where the writer to the Hebrews declares, 'Therefore as the Holy Spirit says' (e.g. Hebrews 3:7). If you can find me any such place or similar where the Speaker or writer goes on to quote Maccabees or Jesus the son of Sirach or any other writer of the apocrypha, I will concede your point. Otherwise you are whistling in the dark.

Not everything in the apocrypha is evil or wrong. Some of it is well worth reading (and some of it isn't). But it isn't Scripture.

Good points here. I grew up RC and it's almost like they WANT to cast doubt on the Scriptures. I find many RC members who have less confidence in the Scriptures than atheists.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Some consider Joshua-Kings the Early Prophets or former Prophets.

You will have problems with books like Esther.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Good points here. I grew up RC and it's almost like they WANT to cast doubt on the Scriptures. I find many RC members who have less confidence in the Scriptures than atheists.

As a Roman Catholic, I have great confidence in scripture. Where you and I diverge is with determining canon. I believe in Christian Tradition passed down to us what is canon. Scripture Alone hold to authority other than scripture in determining canon though that is not often claimed by those. Certainly scripture gives certainty to most of the books but not all. It has to be gained by speculative assumption where by the only definitive statement to the 39 books is stated in the Talmud. There is serious doubt about the Jewish council of Jamnia. Norman Geisler says: "It has been long held by critical scholars that the third section of the current Jewish Old Testament, called the Writings or Kethuvim, were not canonized until ca. 90 CE, when the so-called “Council of Jamnia” (Yavneh) met. However, this case seriously lacks supportive evidence." and "Professor Jack P. Lewis affirmed that “Yavneh and the concerns of its scholars … contain nothing of the closing of the canon at a Council of Jamnia.” In fact, “None of these terms or descriptions suggest that the Yavneh gatherings justify the use of the Christian terminology like ‘synod’ or ‘council’ for them…. These terms are not appropriate to Judaism.” - Geisler, Norman L.. From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible (p. 111). Moody Publishers.

 

[Vincent1]

I think you'll find thatas early as AD 79, the Jews who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 came together and confirmed their canon as the 39 books we have today..

How many New Testament Books did they canonize?

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you'll find thatas early as AD 79, the Jews who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 came together and confirmed their canon as the 39 books we have today.

When the Lord Jesus uses the term 'the law and the prophets' He is referencing the whole of the OT canon.

Let me put this as simply as I can. If you can find me somewhere in the NT where the Lord Jesus says, "Have you never read....?" (e.g. Matthew 21:42) or "As it is written....." (e.g. Mark 7:6); or where Paul says, 'For what does the Scripture say...….?' (e.g. Romans 4:3). Or where the writer to the Hebrews declares, 'Therefore as the Holy Spirit says' (e.g. Hebrews 3:7). If you can find me any such place or similar where the Speaker or writer goes on to quote Maccabees or Jesus the son of Sirach or any other writer of the apocrypha, I will concede your point. Otherwise you are whistling in the dark.

Not everything in the apocrypha is evil or wrong. Some of it is well worth reading (and some of it isn't). But it isn't Scripture.

In facts, the reformers agreed that they were useful to read for historical details of the time, but NEVER were to be used as a source of doctrine or practices!

 

[Yeshua1]

As a Roman Catholic, I have great confidence in scripture. Where you and I diverge is with determining canon. I believe in Christian Tradition passed down to us what is canon. Scripture Alone hold to authority other than scripture in determining canon though that is not often claimed by those. Certainly scripture gives certainty to most of the books but not all. It has to be gained by speculative assumption where by the only definitive statement to the 39 books is stated in the Talmud. There is serious doubt about the Jewish council of Jamnia. Norman Geisler says: "It has been long held by critical scholars that the third section of the current Jewish Old Testament, called the Writings or Kethuvim, were not canonized until ca. 90 CE, when the so-called “Council of Jamnia” (Yavneh) met. However, this case seriously lacks supportive evidence." and "Professor Jack P. Lewis affirmed that “Yavneh and the concerns of its scholars … contain nothing of the closing of the canon at a Council of Jamnia.” In fact, “None of these terms or descriptions suggest that the Yavneh gatherings justify the use of the Christian terminology like ‘synod’ or ‘council’ for them…. These terms are not appropriate to Judaism.” - Geisler, Norman L.. From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible (p. 111). Moody Publishers.

NONE of the excluded non canonical books evidence any sign sof dicine inspiration, as they actually teach doctrines against those already known and received as scriptures, so they cannot be form God in an inspired sense!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

NONE of the excluded non canonical books evidence any sign sof dicine inspiration, as they actually teach doctrines against those already known and received as scriptures, so they cannot be form God in an inspired sense!

What cannon are you referring to? The 39 books of the OT. If so I would ask according to whom? Since, God didn't have a prophet write down an inspired table of contents to whom then do you appeal?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How many New Testament Books did they canonize?

You are asking an entirely different question. The Jews did not canonize anything. It is God Himself who wrote the Scriptures and He who placed them in the canon. All I have said is that the Jews knew what their canon is and that it did not include the Apocrypha.

 

[Vincent1]

You are asking an entirely different question. The Jews did not canonize anything. It is God Himself who wrote the Scriptures and He who placed them in the canon. All I have said is that the Jews knew what their canon is and that it did not include the Apocrypha.

You said “I think you'll find thatas early as AD 79, the Jews who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 came together and confirmed their canon as the 39 books we have today..”

I may have misinterpreted what you meant but I took it as an implying that as being a basis for (or at least support for) the 39 book canon as being correct. If I misinterpreted that, then what is your basis for the 39 book OT canon?

 

[Yeshua1]

What cannon are you referring to? The 39 books of the OT. If so I would ask according to whom? Since, God didn't have a prophet write down an inspired table of contents to whom then do you appeal?

The OT books already recognized by the Pharisees at time of Jesus Himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are asking an entirely different question. The Jews did not canonize anything. It is God Himself who wrote the Scriptures and He who placed them in the canon. All I have said is that the Jews knew what their canon is and that it did not include the Apocrypha.

Jesus and His Apostles never referenced or used as authority non canonical books...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You said “I think you'll find thatas early as AD 79, the Jews who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 came together and confirmed their canon as the 39 books we have today..”

I may have misinterpreted what you meant but I took it as an implying that as being a basis for (or at least support for) the 39 book canon as being correct. If I misinterpreted that, then what is your basis for the 39 book OT canon?

It is certainly a 'support' for the canon as we have it today, but only for unbelievers. The Bible is God's word. He confirms it as 'My word' in a variety of places (e.g. Jeremiah 23:29). It is He who has given it to us and we are beholden to Him for it, not to the Jews, and certainly not to the Church of Rome.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is certainly a 'support' for the canon as we have it today, but only for unbelievers. The Bible is God's word. He confirms it as 'My word' in a variety of places (e.g. Jeremiah 23:29). It is He who has given it to us and we are beholden to Him for it, not to the Jews, and certainly not to the Church of Rome.

The canococal books arehave the self fulfilling aspect of being shown to be inspired by God Himself, and speak with authority, not as the non ones do!

 

[Vincent1]

It is certainly a 'support' for the canon as we have it today, but only for unbelievers. The Bible is God's word. He confirms it as 'My word' in a variety of places (e.g. Jeremiah 23:29). It is He who has given it to us and we are beholden to Him for it, not to the Jews, and certainly not to the Church of Rome.

How does it ‘support’ a 39 book canon? Because we should trust the Jews regarding scripture? I certainly affirm that the 39 books of the Old Testament are the inspired word of God. I know why I believe that. Based on your answer, you seem to believe that the Bible is the word of God because some books of the canon refer to (an undefined list of) books as the word of God. This does nothing to help one understand which books are canonical.

 

[utilyan]

The most offensive are the Marian dogma which elevate (in affect) Jesus mother to a semi-divine status.

The 5th Marian dogma has been believed for decades but has not been proclaimed ex cathedra.
It is before the pope to promulgate it:



The Fifth Marian Dogma: Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate

I could assure you Santa Claus is a close 2nd to Jesus Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The OT books already recognized by the Pharisees at time of Jesus Himself.

Which books? Jesus only mentions the Law and the Prophets which leave out certain books. The Pharisees are recorded as holding to 22 or 24 by but even at that with all the speculation on which scrolls were combined. It still leaves out certain books. And you are still relying on speculation. In the end the only verifiable authority used to determine the 39 books of the OT is Jewish authority 300 to 500 years after Jesus Christ when Christianity was well established. To say this isn't so is to let you hold to speculation as authoritative in determining canon. Still Esther is a problematic book to hold as canon based on these views. The Early Christians certainly took from the LXX which includes books of the Deuterocanonical writings. Christians far closer to the time of Christ hold as authoritative the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which books? Jesus only mentions the Law and the Prophets which leave out certain books. The Pharisees are recorded as holding to 22 or 24 by but even at that with all the speculation on which scrolls were combined. It still leaves out certain books. And you are still relying on speculation. In the end the only verifiable authority used to determine the 39 books of the OT is Jewish authority 300 to 500 years after Jesus Christ when Christianity was well established. To say this isn't so is to let you hold to speculation as authoritative in determining canon. Still Esther is a problematic book to hold as canon based on these views. The Early Christians certainly took from the LXX which includes books of the Deuterocanonical writings. Christians far closer to the time of Christ hold as authoritative the Deuterocanonical books.

Ligonier Ministries