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

Yes but the ECF were not given the gift of being inspired like the apostles.

 

That is a big statement. How do you know that the 39 books you listed as solidified canonical books were the books established at the time of Jesus? Jesus only list the Categories of books as the Law and the Prophets. (Torah and Neviim). In order to say those books were cannon and no other you have to accept outside sources of the bible to determine that. Even Norman Geisler says "the complete canon of the Old Testament is consistently referred to as the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17; Luke 16:16; 24:27)." Geisler, Norman L.. From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible (p. 114). Moody Publishers. Then in order to say that all 39 books were included in these two categories he relies on extra biblical support from Non-Christian sources "As the Talmud declared, “Up to this point [fourth century BCE] the prophets prophesied through the Holy Spirit; from this time onward incline thine ear and listen to the sayings of the wise” (Seder Olam Rabba 30), adding that with the death of Malachi, “the Holy Spirit ceased out of Israel” (Tos. Sotah 13:2)."Geisler, Norman L.. From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible (p. 112). Moody Publishers. His support for this position is from Post Christian Jews who compiled the Talmud 300 to 500 years after Jesus Christ. He doesn't bother with early Christians writings regarding the matter. So then do you accept extra biblical tradition of the Talmud long after Jesus Christ to set the cannon for you? Which, if you do then you are not Sola Scriptura. You would adhere to Jewish Tradition rather than Christian. It is clear the NT writers often used the LXX translations for their OT quotes as well as referencing Deuterocanonical books. You can see it clearly when they quote Isaiah 7:14 saying that the virgin would conceive the messiah rather than the Hebrew text which states a young woman. Even the Aramaic Targum text says young woman.

 

No... she replaces the Holy Spirit.

 

EXACTLY why Jesus upbraided some Pharisees for placing "the traditions of men" over "the commands of God".!

 

Also, i'd liketa see the source for their authority for MEN to make saints!

 

Let me be the devil's advocate, Ya, I know it fits

They would answer in the Jesuit manner: We do not make saints we only recognize them as saints as Paul did when addressing the Church at Rome:

1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

And Corinth

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

And other of his epistles.

HankD (Former Catholic)

 

Y As a former Catholic I don't remember any saints being referred to as "super" saints.

Although you do have a point because we were taught that we could pray to these saints who had been officially "canonized".

 

If you are referencing the Holy Spirit, he left after Constantine took over and made the state and the church synonymous.

 

They teach that we cannot know if someone is in heaven or purgatory or hell or if they went to heaven did they go there immediately.

Many Catholics will have the names of departed loved ones included at mass for the purpose of shortening their purgatory time even though they don't know where they are - purgatory, heaven , hell.

Of course now we have Pope Francis telling us that there is no hell and the damned simply "disappear".

Pope Francis reportedly denies the existence of hell. Vatican panics.

 

Yes.

 

I would say yes and that the Apostles certainly understood it that way and passed it to us that way.

 

We follow the Lord Jesus. "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they that testify of Me" (John 5:39). The Scriptures that our Lord is speaking of are those used by the Jews of His time on earth. They are the ones from which He quoted extensively, asking the Pharisees, "Have you not read.....?". Never once did He quote from the Apocrypha.

The Holy Spirit authorized the use of 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14. He caused Matthew to quote it that way.

 

If I follow your thinking correctly, are you saying that you consider only the books which Jesus quotes directly from as canon? If that is the case you have fewer than 39 books of the OT. You will not be able to account for books you consider canon by this rule. Also the New Testament references certain Deuterocanonical books which you call Apocrypha. For instance as simple one would be Matthew 6:19-20 were Jesus follows a teaching mentioned in Sirach 29:11 with regard to laying up treasure in heaven. There are many more examples of this but would be lengthy to post them all here. I will, however, mention one other clear reference to those books in Hebrews 11:35 is referencing the occurrence in 2 Maccabees chapter 7. An interesting Study is to see the Correlation between Jesus teaching and those in the Deuterocanonical books. So either what you have accepted as canon has too many books if Jesus is required to quote from it for determining canonicity or you are following Jewish Talmudic tradition as does Geisler for it rather than Christian Tradition.

The fact that Matthew uses the word virgin rather than young girl in his quote from Isaiah 7:14 shows he is not reliant on the Hebrew translation for it and is more in line with the LXX translation.

 

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.