As a former Catholic, my question is “When seriously looking at history, how can any christianist remain that, especially a Catholic?” I completely, save for one small bit, agree with Publisher in post #2 this thread. You see, your question skips a number of important steps. You just went from being a “christian” to being a “christian.” After the third century, it is doubtful that any notion of what the original teaching was has remained intact, if there was any left even at that point. By original teaching I mean what surely must be referenced in Mark (who didn’t write that, as didn’t any of the four evangelists write theirs) 4:33,34.
Seriously: how did that get past the censors, or anyone thinking about the validity of the completeness of what’s recorded as alleged public teaching? So the question about the thread title might well be:
“What makes anyone think that any denomination, including Catholic, holds an allegedly holdable ‘truth?’”
And if you think one does: “What is the nature of that ‘truth’ and how might I be holding it vis a vi my practical knowledge and experience in epistemology, history, ancient languages, translation, interpretation (& by what standards,) literary criticism–including but way not limited to knowledge of literary standards of the time, idiom, semiotics, general semantics, the natures of witnessing, comprehension, reportage, collections, corruption of various kinds and degrees, credentials and abilities of those making decisions re scripture and dogma from inclusion to interpretation to pastoral policy, phenomenology of religion and, in general, the psychology of belief, and all of the above and more under the chief heading of the phenomenal ability of the human mind to make stuff up and believe it as if it was Reality.”
