Maybe some Protestants/Non-Catholics can answer......

[Willa]

2 hours ago, Hoddie said:

Catholics don't need to ask them, for we know who determined what books were to be included in scripture. The question is.... who do you think did if the bible does not list them?

 

Peace

The Holy Spirit God Breathed the Scripture and had overseen the sorting of those fake books that contained error.  Those who are Spirit filled can easily discern truth from error.  Jesus said He would lead us into all truth since He is the Spirit of Truth.  That is also how the error in the Catholic Church can be easily discerned as well.  The acid test is the Bible.  Without it we have only traditions of men and old wives tales.  So we measure all doctrine by Scripture as enlightened by the Holy Spirit.  That is also why we don't need popes or priests to explain the Bible to us.  We who are filled with God's Spirit can understand it easily.  Those who are not filled with the Holy Spirit may have to rely on popes or priests to explain it to them.

It is sad when any church diminishes the work of the Holy Spirit and claims the work of God was in reality the work of men or of an institution.  It is just as sad when the aide of angels and dead saints is sought as intermediaries to God.  We are to pray only to God and depend only on Jesus Christ as our intermediary. But in the end we all will answer to God, won't we?

Wasn't it Socrates who taught by asking questions?.  The problem with your doing this is that it just won't work with those of us who know the Truth.  But we will pray that you also may be filled with and enlightened by God's Spirit and come to full knowledge of the Truth so that you don't have to rely on the teachings of men.  We also pray for the protection of the baby Christians and that those seeking to know God will be saved from the lies of the deceiver of the brethren regardless of who conveys them. 

To God be the glory!  Let us unite in our adoration of Him!  Let's dwell on the things we all hold in common and celebrate those things.  We will be celebrating the birth of our Savior soon.  We have so much to be thankful for in Christ.  

Blessings,

Willa

[Ezra]

8 hours ago, Hoddie said:

And then there is my original question. "Can you tell/show me where you got your Canon of Scripture?

Since the question was answered adequately it is clear that you are simply TROLLING here and trying to get under the skin of non-Catholics.  Your time would be better spent elsewhere.

"DON'T FEED THE TROLLS" is still a good axiom.

[RustyAngeL]

4 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Its impossible to correct someone who refuses to be corrected, even in love after they make fun of us and ridicule us because we prefer to stay with God's Holy Word alone. Is this doing the work of God?

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222,

(quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”)

Satanists, they have their own church.  People who belong to the church of Satan are not doing what they do for God are they? We even have the church of Satan in Sydney and Melbourne. They even have their own bible. Its sickening and terrifying.

I had a friend in high school who carried this book around with her all the time.  So many of us carried the Bible around with us, (That was the time when you could and not get expelled.)  My friend turned into a screaming wide eyed liberal who laughs at others faith.  

I know who I am in Christ and am not afraid to share my faith with anyone. " I"m not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ", and never will be.  I"m sad for those who believe in Jesus and are saved but never take the time to share what has been so freely forgiven.

Blessings, RustyAngeL

[Marilyn C]

9 hours ago, Hoddie said:

Hello Marilyn. When you say "Seems to me" are you suggesting that you are not sure?

 

Also, let me ask you the sme thing I asked Willa......wouldn't you agree Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint?

And then there is my original question. "Can you tell/show me where you got your Canon of Scripture?

Peace

 

 

Hi Hoddie,

It also seems to me that you have not replied to my answering your question about 70 and the 75 persons.

regards, Marilyn.

[thilipsis]

On 12/3/2016 at 5:56 PM, Hoddie said:

A question from the Catholics here on Worthy Christian.....

Can you tell/show us where you got your Canon of Scripture?

　

I'm talking about the Canonical books that are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books considerd to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals.

This question has been asked on numerous occasions in the past, and more recently in the now closed Lourdes thread. Many have claimed to have answered this question, but have failed to show any historical or Scriptural evidence to back it up. Back on the last page (pg.8) Hazard made an intersting comment coming from someone that adheres to the sola scriptura doctrine. as Follows.

On 12/3/2016 at 5:56 PM, Hoddie said:

Hazard: "The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the bible. The difficulity in determining the biblical canon is that the bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible."

You could never get a complete list of the canon of Scripture from the Scriptures while the books are being written. The Pentateuch would have been written before the children of Israel entered the promised land but they wouldn't have been called the canon, they were known as the Law. The various additions over the centuries to the Hebrew canon would have been to sole responsibility of the Levitical priesthood culminating after the return to Israel after the Babylonian captivity under the authority of Ezra who effectively closed the Old Testament canon. The New Testament canon was compiled over about ten years from 60 AD to 70 AD. The New Testament books were meticulously copied and circulated among the churches and are presently represented by some 30,000 extant manuscripts. As to the criteria, that's actually a little more complicated but still comprehensive:

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).

 

On 12/3/2016 at 5:56 PM, Hoddie said:

Now if the bible does not give a list if the books that belong in the bible as Hazard states, how do Sola Scripturists determine that the books that are in the bible truly belong there? From a Protestant/nondenominational perspective, and if its not in the bible, by who's or what authority determined it?

Do those of you that beleive the bible alone holds all truth, and is sufficient as a sole rule of faith agree with Hazard? If so, doesn't this contradict the premise of Sola Scriptura?

　

Peace

 

Solo Scriptura and the Canon of Scripture are actually two different issues, they do have considerable overlap. Solo Scriptura emerged during the Protestant Reformation in response to the dogma of the ecclesiastical authority of Rome. According to Martin Luther:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." (Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms 1521)

Specific tests of canon vary somewhat but there are some basic principles that were involved:

The Tests of Canonicity
Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized.

(1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative? Compare the following references: (a) God was speaking through the human author—Ex. 20:1; Josh. 1:1; Isa. 2:1; (b) that the books were authoritative—Joshua 1:7-8; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 23:25; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11; Malachi 4:4. Note also Joshua 6:26 compared with 1 Kings 16:34; Joshua 24:29-33 compared with Judges 2:8-9; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 compared with Ezra 1:1-4; Daniel 9:2 compared with Jeremiah 25:11-12.

(2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift? Compare Deuteronomy 18:18; 31:24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Nehemiah 8:3.

(3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?(The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M.)

While I'm well aware that there are several excellent answers to the question posed, I thought I would jump in and offer my two cents worth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

[woundeddog]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 6:23 PM, other one said:

Why do you ask?

excellent-- lol

 

[woundeddog]

I think that the obvious intellectual trap that Hodies is trying to lay here is that the Bible as we have it now was compiled and vetted by early church fathers___ Hodie will then say-- see, Apostalic authority is valid and Church tradition is as reliable and as  authoritative as The Written Biblical record. And then he will go onto say that all of the decrees and interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church carry as much weight as Traditional written scripture.

 

All though this is a carefully crafted Jesuit argument it fails in 2 significant ways-

#1) the early church fathers where dealing with scripture that was already written, they where just searching for consistency of inspiration, They were not generating any new doctrine or catechisms or practices as the RCC does today, they where just sorting it out.

#2) The group that did the vetting was not cut from the same cloth that Todays and histories RC leader were cut from, These where truly godly men, taking scripture for what it said rather than trying to make it say what suited them----- they may in fact have been the seed of what eventually grew into the RRC but as it morphed it changed from the primitive foundation of Christian faith into the classic religious ruling class that the scribes and Pharisees were from-- given significant authority man will always stray from the truth

[other one]

According to Malachi Martin in 1963 Satan was enthroned as the head of the RCC.   You can get the full details in a book he wrote, "Windswept House".    It's rather eye opening.

Malachi was  Jesuit priest who was allowed to give up some of his vows so he could write books and sell them, and a special dispensation that answered directly to the Pope.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 3:18 PM, other one said:

According to Malachi Martin in 1963 Satan was enthroned as the head of the RCC.   You can get the full details in a book he wrote, "Windswept House".    It's rather eye opening.

Malachi was  Jesuit priest who was allowed to give up some of his vows so he could write books and sell them, and a special dispensation that answered directly to the Pope.

Windswept House is a novel by Malachi Martin.  As such, it should be read with that in mind.  He writes both fiction and non-fiction.

Source: Windswept House

[other one]

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Windswept House is a novel by Malachi Martin.  As such, it should be read with that in mind.  He writes both fiction and non-fiction.

Source: Windswept House

He told me personally that everything in the book was true except the names.  He also told people on many interviews that it was written as faction, but all true but the names