You ask the question “How do you know you’re right?”, and some have tried to answer. I suggest that you are asking the wrong question.
Much of the confusion revolves around the use of words like “right”, “truth”, and “correct”. We’re missing some words that are very important - words like “factual”, “historical”, and “reasonable”.
Judaism is a historical religion. There are historical references to important Jewish figures recorded by other, non-Jewish sources (like Saul, David, Solomon, and Joseph). So we can say that Judaism is historical, and that much of the writings of its important figures that refer to events independently recorded elsewhere are factual.
Christianity is a historical religion. There are records of Jesus and the Apostles in Roman archives and in histories of other nations around the Middle East. We find references in the New Testament to historical events, so we know that Biblical references to these events are factual.
Islam’s a problem, as is Mormonism. Both had a single individual who wrote out their holy book, by themselves, as a matter of private revelation. (The Bible, by contrast, was a collection of writings by numerous authors over centuries.)
The Koran is a dictation from On High, from an eternal, unchanging Allah, but it contradicts itself in numerous places. Muslims say that whatever Mohammed wrote later is considered to be correct. So somewhere along the line someone said, “I know what I said
then; listen to what I’m saying
now!”
Although Islam and its leaders are historically known, the Koran does not contain much in the way of historical events; thus, we have trouble aligning the Koran with independent accounts, which would make it more factual.
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from a stack of golden plates he got from the angel Moroni. The Book of Mormon contains predictions of great events to come. The last event it predicted was the American Civil War, which ended shortly before the Book of Mormon was published.
In addition to a lack of correlatable historical information, the history of the Book of Mormon militates against reason.
The Bible contains historical events and persons, so we can align it with objective history. It teaches certain morals and philosophies that conform to reason. The Bible is historical, factual, and reasonable.
Consider the New Testament. It’s the same in the King James Version as it is in the Douay-Rheims version (an older version used for centuries in the Catholic Church). The Mormons use this same New Testament; so do the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Adventists, the Baptists, and scores of other churches.
Who decided which books were to be included in the New Testament?
The Catholic Church. If you accept the 24 books in the New Testament as the complete canon of the New Testament, then you accept the authority of the Catholic Church to say what should be in that canon - because the Catholic Church
defined the canon.
You mention that the Catholic Church teaches things that are not in the Bible, and intimate that you would not accept any doctrine that was not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Do you accept the doctrine of the Trinity? If you do, you accept a Catholic doctrine that is not explicitly in the Bible. It can be
deduced logically from Scripture, but it’s not
explicitly there - it’s implied.
Of course, it begs the question, “If so many non-Catholic churches accept the Catholic canon of the New Testament, why don’t they accept the Catholic canon of the Old Testament?” I can’t answer that; it seems King James’ little band of editors chose to listen to pre-Diasporan Jews instead.
So let’s get back to the original point: asking the right questions. I suggest the following:
“Is your religion historical? Are there independent historical accounts of important figures in your religion’s history? Does your holy book (if extant) contain references to events in history that are indepentently corroborated?” Non-historical religions are automatically suspect. Be cautious about prophecy.
“Are the teachings within your holy book consistent throughout the entire text? If there are contradictions, how do you reconcile them?” Be wary of religions that don’t have consistent scriptures or reasonable explanations for apparent contradictions.
“What is the historical or scriptural source of your church’s authority?” Authority should be clearly established in both history and scripture.
“Is your religion exoteric (meaning that all its teachings are publicly available) or esoteric (meaning that some teachings are only available to adherents and not taught to outsiders)?” Esoteric religions imply that you have to drink the Kool-Aid first.
Once you receive answers that satisfy you, it’s time to start looking into what that religion teaches in an in-depth fashion. I suggest you start with a polite inquiry into the Catholic faith by asking your questions of the many apologists on this forum.
Welcome to the Forum!
I’m assuming you’re jewish because thats what you put as your religion.