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

[Vincent1]

What I was saying was the the Jews had established their caqnonical books by the time of Jesus, and that the NT books were pretty much all recognized and being seen as scriptures by end of the first century.

Sorry, but I don’t believe this to be true. As Martin alluded to earlier, this didn’t occur until the 70s AD (the so called council of Jamnia I believe?).

Also, “pretty much” doesn’t quite cut it. You have “pretty much” all of the OT canon. I mean, you have almost 90%! If scripture was as self evident as you say it would have been 100% agreed upon instead of merely pretty much agreed upon with disagreement over a few books. Luther wouldn’t have tried to throw out NT books he didn’t care for (didn’t fit his theology)

 

[Vincent1]

The Apostles themselves were witness to others books being inspired, for did not peter see paul as inspired, and paul saw Luke?

Which apostles stated that Jude, 2 or 3 John, or 2 Peter were inspired (among others).

 

[Vincent1]

'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.

Attempted sophistry? Allow me to translate the above statement: scripture should be believed because it is the word of God and it is the word of God because we believe it to be. This is circular reasoning.

And also, “we believe this because the Holy Spirit tells us it is so”. “Anybody who believes differently? They don’t have the Holy Spirit. Obviously”

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The truth is that while the RCC recogzied those non canonical books, they were not inspired by God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Which apostles stated that Jude, 2 or 3 John, or 2 Peter were inspired (among others).

Te beginning church received them as being inspired, and used them as such, WAY before RCC stated that they were!

 

[Yeshua1]

Attempted sophistry? Allow me to translate the above statement: scripture should be believed because it is the word of God and it is the word of God because we believe it to be. This is circular reasoning.

And also, “we believe this because the Holy Spirit tells us it is so”. “Anybody who believes differently? They don’t have the Holy Spirit. Obviously”

The truth is that the earliest Christians recognized as NT scripture the canon book early on, so Rome did not "give them to us"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The truth is that while the RCC recogzied those non canonical books, they were not inspired by God!

According to whom? How do you know its the Truth? You say it is but where is your support? You can't say scriptures because the scriptures do not include an inspired table of contents. If you use all the references to books that are identified as "it is written" you miss many books you consider canon because they are not referred to in that way.

 

[Yeshua1]

According to whom? How do you know its the Truth? You say it is but where is your support? You can't say scriptures because the scriptures do not include an inspired table of contents. If you use all the references to books that are identified as "it is written" you miss many books you consider canon because they are not referred to in that way.

The inspired ones speak with authotiy, the saved knwo that areof God, but the others have errors in them, have false teachings, and have no speail authority in them!

 

[Vincent1]

The truth is that the earliest Christians recognized as NT scripture the canon book early on, so Rome did not "give them to us"

OK! Now we are getting somewhere! So you accept them in the authority of the earliest Christians?

 

[Vincent1]

The inspired ones speak with authotiy, the saved knwo that areof God, but the others have errors in them, have false teachings, and have no speail authority in them!

And ‘round and ‘round we go.

So are we back to “the saved know which are canonical because the Holy Spirit reveals it to them”?

 

[Yeshua1]

And ‘round and ‘round we go.

So are we back to “the saved know which are canonical because the Holy Spirit reveals it to them”?

he gave with each canon book that sure testimony of being inspired, as they "speak" with the authority of God! The earliest Chrsitian heard and received them as being such!

 

[Yeshua1]

OK! Now we are getting somewhere! So you accept them in the authority of the earliest Christians?

The ones in the bible times, yes!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Attempted sophistry? Allow me to translate the above statement: scripture should be believed because it is the word of God and it is the word of God because we believe it to be. This is circular reasoning.

And also, “we believe this because the Holy Spirit tells us it is so”. “Anybody who believes differently? They don’t have the Holy Spirit. Obviously”

The word of God is self-authenticating. 'The Pharisees said to Him, "You bear witness of Yourself. Your witness is not true [or 'valid']." Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going.......You judge according to the flesh"' (John 8:13-14). According to fleshly reasoning, this is a circular argument. '...For the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Corinthians 2:14).

There are loads of reasons for believing in the Canon of Scripture. I have given some and I can give you plenty more, but you are not interested in them. FYI, nearly 4,000 times in the O.T. we read expressions such as 'The LORD spoke,' 'the LORD commanded,' 'the LORD said.' None of the prophets believed he was speaking on his own authority. Check out, for example, Micah 3:8. This in contrast to the writers of the Apocrypha.

However, the final evidence of the extent, truthfulness, inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, does not come from men but from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The inspired ones speak with authotiy, the saved knwo that areof God, but the others have errors in them, have false teachings, and have no speail authority in them!

If Scriptures are your sole authority on truth

The inspired ones speak with authotiy, the saved knwo that areof God, but the others have errors in them, have false teachings, and have no speail authority in them!

So, to summarize you are saying that your authority to which books belong in canon and those that do not are based on your opinion and anyone who happens to agree with you?

 

[Yeshua1]

If Scriptures are your sole authority on truth

So, to summarize you are saying that your authority to which books belong in canon and those that do not are based on your opinion and anyone who happens to agree with you?

No, rather that the earliest Christians recognized the books of the Apostles as being inspired just in the same fashion that the OT canon books were from God, and that by time of death of John, all but a few NT books had already been established as cononical ones! Rome just merely recognized what had already been seen as the Canon of scriptures centuries before!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, rather that the earliest Christians recognized the books of the Apostles as being inspired just in the same fashion that the OT canon books were from God, and that by time of death of John, all but a few NT books had already been established as cononical ones! Rome just merely recognized what had already been seen as the Canon of scriptures centuries before!

The problem is that the records of the early Christians is that they used books from the Deuterocanonical books. We even see their use in the NT.

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem is that the records of the early Christians is that they used books from the Deuterocanonical books. We even see their use in the NT.

ONLY select portions allowed to be recorded down by the Holy Spirit, so that part being versed was accurate, but not the entire book that it came from would be!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ONLY select portions allowed to be recorded down by the Holy Spirit, so that part being versed was accurate, but not the entire book that it came from would be!

Again, according to whom? You say the Holy Spirit. But how do you know? So far the only suggestion is everyone who agrees with you, which means you are your own authority. Your opinion is your authority. The Holy Spirit doesn't argue with itself. Apart from extra biblical tradition of the Torah there is nothing you can rely on to verify that the books of canon are just the 39 books of the OT. You can't say Scripture Alone because there is nothing in scripture that list all 39 books as canon. If you say, when scripture says about another book "it is written" you fall shorter than 39 books. If you say the Holy Spirit revealed it to you then, one must ask how? If you say because I just know it and recognize it then you fall back upon your own opinion rather than objective evidence.
I also find your answer interesting though, because it seems to me what you are suggesting is that parts of Deuterocanonical books are inspired but not the whole book or group of books. Which then leads me to ask maybe parts of the 39 books of the OT canon you hold to aren't entirely inspired themselves only parts of each book. How can you determine which part of books are inspired and those that are not?

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, according to whom? You say the Holy Spirit. But how do you know? So far the only suggestion is everyone who agrees with you, which means you are your own authority. Your opinion is your authority. The Holy Spirit doesn't argue with itself. Apart from extra biblical tradition of the Torah there is nothing you can rely on to verify that the books of canon are just the 39 books of the OT. You can't say Scripture Alone because there is nothing in scripture that list all 39 books as canon. If you say, when scripture says about another book "it is written" you fall shorter than 39 books. If you say the Holy Spirit revealed it to you then, one must ask how? If you say because I just know it and recognize it then you fall back upon your own opinion rather than objective evidence.
I also find your answer interesting though, because it seems to me what you are suggesting is that parts of Deuterocanonical books are inspired but not the whole book or group of books. Which then leads me to ask maybe parts of the 39 books of the OT canon you hold to aren't entirely inspired themselves only parts of each book. How can you determine which part of books are inspired and those that are not?

What I am saying is that there were parts of the Non canonical books that had recorded down some historical information that was factual, as those were the parts used by James to quote and use!

 

[Adonia]

According to whom? How do you know its the Truth? You say it is but where is your support? You can't say scriptures because the scriptures do not include an inspired table of contents. If you use all the references to books that are identified as "it is written" you miss many books you consider canon because they are not referred to in that way.

The "truth" is what our friend thinks it is. He makes up his own as things roll along, totally rejecting the all that came before him (or at least all that came before the 15th - 16th century). True Christianity was on hiatus form the 1st century on don't you know and the great theologians of the early church are to be rejected as if they never existed.