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

Read what I have written again. You don't seem to have understood me and repeating myself is tedious.
But the Apocrypha cannot be the word of God, and its writers make no pretensions for it to be so. The phrase, 'Hear the word of the LORD' or similar which are common in the O.T. never appear in the Apocrypha. The writer of 1 Maccabees states three times that a prophet was no longer available in Israel (4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Then there are factual errors, especially in Judith and Tobit: for example, Judith 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Nineveh instead of Babylon. The Prayer of Manasseh states that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not sinners.

As for the Church of Rome, 'pope' Innocent I included the Apocrypha in 405, at the very time that Jerome wanted to exclude it Another 'pope' excluded it around 600; 'Cardinal' Ximenes excluded it in the 16th Century only to be overruled by the Council of Trent. So any appeal to the 'Church fathers' fails.

 

I’m just asking questions here and repeating your words back to you. Maybe re-read what you wrote.

So any book that doesn’t explicitly claim to be scripture is not scripture? Got it. So every book of the 39 book OT canon explicitly states that it is canonical, or the word of God, or some other such phrasing. I’ll have to look into that; it will be an interesting project.

Would that criteria hold for the New Testament as well? Any epistle that does not contain “hear the word of the Lord” or some other similar phrase is not scriptural?

 

You wouldn’t put any weight into the opinion of a Church Father with whom you disagreed so why bring Church Father’s opinion into this discussion? What I am interested in is what is your infallible authority that has determined what the canon is? I don’t believe that you can say scripture because nowhere does scripture state what the entirety of scripture is composed of. It must be something else, so what would that be?

 

God told you which books were canonical?

 

So the canonical books are those that agree with your theology?

 

I agree with this. (Although there was debate among many books in the NTcanon. There was not unanimous agreement on every book) But what about the OT canon then? They were not written by an apostle or a companion of an apostle.

 

So if the theology preceded the canon, how do you know what the correct theology is?

 

I suppose that you could also say that all but 7 of the OT books were recognized right away.

What Luther thought of the canon is irrelevant isn’t it? I thought you were talking about the early Church’s understanding of what scripture was and how it was self evident?

 

I feel like we are stuck in some circular reasoning here. If theology confirms scripture than scripture cannot be used to confirm theology. Unless there is some other way of defining scripture then one could let faulty theology be used to canonize uninspired scripture. Likewise, non inspired scripture could lead to faulty theology.

To add another wrinkle, a writing may not be inspired but could still be in line with proper theology. In this case, uninspired writings could be incorrectly recognized as inspired Scripture.

So when you say say theology was already recognized as inspired by God, how was that recognized? Who recognized it? How do we in 2018 know what that theology was and that is was indeed recognized?

(Just to be clear; I believe the 66 books you recognize as canonical to be inspired by God.)

 

'The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God its Author (who is Truth itself). Therefore it ought to be received because it is the word of God.
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the people of God to gain a high and reverent estimation of the Holy Scriptures. We may be similarly affected by the nature of the Scriptures-- the heavenliness of the contents, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, which is to give glory to God, the full disclosure it makes of the only way of man's salvation, together with many other incomparable excellencies and entire perfections. By all this evidence, the Scripture more than proves itself the word of God.
Yet, notwithstanding this, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth of Scripture and its divine authority is from an inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.' 1689 London Baptist Confession 1:4-5.

The Scripture needs none of your attempted sophistry. The Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, precede the Church of Rome and stand in no need of any man's authentication.

 

I read the Article and it is not quite correct. The fact is that centuries before the council of Trent the Catholic Church had already determined the books of the Deuterocanonical books were authoritative.
The Council of Rome in 382, the Council of Hippo in 393, The Councils of Carthage in 397 and in 419, Nicea in 787, Florence in 1442, and finally Trent in 1546.
As far as Jerome he did have disagreements with Augustine with regard to the inclusion but did accept some of it and in the end entered all the Deuterocanonical books into his Latin translation known as the Latin Vulgate and not as an Appendix. Jerome subjected himself to the Catholic Church.
Also you are still faced with the issue of which books? It is clear that the Jews at the time of Jesus categorized the scriptures in to two categories i.e. the Law and the Prophets, however, there is no way to determine which and how many books that are fallen outside those categories were included.
Your view of a settle canon at the time of Jesus is not so certain. "To be candid: before the Bible, there was no Bible. Before the beginning of the second century CE, there were Jewish scriptures whose forms were still in flux and many scriptures were excluded in the finalization of the Hebrew Bible. Prior to the second century there was no way of knowing which scriptural books would be included within the collection and which would be left out; nor was there any way of knowing how the final version of the individual books would appear...Jews and Christians used numerous scriptural texts that never made it into the “canon”; and the forms that later became biblical books were in an extraordinary state of fluctuation between the third century BCE and the second CE...we must recognize that the Hebrew Bible editions in our hands today, those based on the medieval Masoretic Text, do not represent the “original text” of the Bible. The greatest modern authority on the Hebrew textual
tradition puts it bluntly: “One thing is clear, it should not be postulated that the Masoretic Text better or more frequently reflects the original text of the biblical books than any other text.”
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p.19, 20, and 23). Oxford University Press.