PROVE Catholicism True!

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Can you PROVE Catholicism true beyond a shadow of a doubt? In my quest to “learn” Apologetics I keep coming across articles, etc that “prove” Catholicism is wrong. In what ways can Catholicism be PROVEN true? Thanks. God bless.

What a loathsome idea ​

If Catholicism is to be called Christian in any sense worth discussing, it has to be Christian in its character; which includes the way in which we use our minds upon it.

To cut a long story short - the way Christians encounter God is by faith, not by reason; faith, not reason, is what unites us to God - specifically, to God as revealed in Christ. Faith takes priority over reason. But proof does not require faith. The Blessed in heaven have no faith at all, because they see God face to face - we need faith, because we do not see Him with that clarity.

If Catholicism could be proved true, I would waste no time in throwing it up as a lie and a deceit; for the proof would only show it to be a deceit or an error or a fraud. Nothing could be more faithless, more unbelieving, more atheistical, than to “prove true” what can be known as true by faith, & only by faith. Those who try to prove Christianity true are putting their trust in their flickering light of reason, they are trying to do without faith. This is like trying to live in the full light of the Resurrection without passing through the darkness of Good Friday & the Sabbath before the Resurrection: it’s not allowed, & it is not possible: the agony of Gethsemane & the disgrace & humiliation of the Cross must come first. We are in this world to be crucified, not to be raised in glory - that will come, but later.

Their success in proving what can be known only by faith only succeeds in undermining the very thing they are trying to serve: by trying to have certainty rather than faith, they only succeed in degrading faith into rationalism, and the Truth Who is Christ into yet another man-made philosophy. Of its very nature, faith requires trust - intellectual proofs need very little trust; they shut Christ out, by making our need to trust in Him redundant. So this excessive intellectualism is anti-Christian in its tendency

The only valid proof of faith is proof in its old sense of “testing”. Our faith is put to the proof, probed, proved, in that sense, by our daily lives - daily experience is what tests the genuineness of faith. But proving in the sense of “showing to be true beyond a doubt”, by argument and suchlike, is not at all the way to prove it. ##

 

[mozart-250]

Back to my original question. As Catholics we can say Catholicism can be proved by history, the unbroken line of Popes since Peter, the early Church Fathers, etc. But some of the Protestants have “claims” of their own, which I can’t really disprove either, so what do we do in a case like that? One arguement is the Baptist trail of blood (I think that’s what they call it). Another web site I was on disputed the fact that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity by saying Catholicism started in the 300’s. So how do we as Catholics prove our beliefs over those of the protestants?

Logan, you are articulating an underlying assumption of Catholicism that I question.

The underlying assumption is that lineage is the governing metric of “true church”. In other words, because the Catholic church is the only church that can be traced from Peter, therefore it is the one true church.

For now I am not questioning whether it is indeed true that the lineage of the Catholic Church descends from Peter (I might want to verify that at some point). I do question the assumption that lineage is the only governing metric of “true church”.

The fact is that from reading the Bible, I have no idea what Christ sees as the “True Church” when the one Church he founded divided upon itself. Using the metrics of Christlikeness and conduct, none of the ecclesiastical organizations that I have observed seem to distinguish themselves head-n-shoulders above the rest.

(that having been said I am inclined to believe there is some value in lineage, I just question whether lineage is the governing metric of “true church”).

 

[Church_Militant]

-]Back to my original question. As Catholics we can say Catholicism can be proved by history, the unbroken line of Popes since Peter, the early Church Fathers, etc. But/-] some of the Protestants have “claims” of their own, which I can’t really disprove either

, **so what do we do in a case like that?**Do they now? The fact is that if you know some dude (like moi…) who has been on that side of the religious fence, you’ll find that those assertions are often VERY subjective and in fact outright spurious.

One arguement is the Baptist trail of blood (I think that’s what they call it).

Oh MAN! I LOVE this one. I haven’t bothered to finish reading it all the way through, and I don’t think I can. Y’see, I like my works of fiction to at least have some basis in reality. Even my sci-fi has humans in them. I can’t get into it because I get crazy either lhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/2.gifughing at the nonhistorical trash or I get md at the outright lies they are trying to perpetrate about the Catholic faith that I love. Only people who are Catholignorant as well as badly ignorant of how you verify “facts” presented in a case will buy into this one. There’s so little factual information in “Trail of Blood” that it really should be classed as a work of fiction. I like to start at the beginning and try to verify each allegation as I go. Know what…if you try it (like I did), you’ll discover that I’m right about this one. (Then you can start on E.G. White’s work of fiction called, “The Great Controversy”.:whacky

Another web site I was on disputed the fact that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity by saying Catholicism started in the 300’s.

Oh yeah! I like this one too! In fact there’s a thread running on somewhere here in Apologetics on it as we speak. Usually it’s alleged that Constantine was the first Pope, which is a screaming good joke seeing as the dude disn’t even get baptized until he was near death. Gosh…can’t be Pope unless you’re a baptized Catholic, right?

Sounds like someone’s been reading Lorraine Boettner’s anti-Catholic propaganda “classic” called “Roman Catholicism”. The bad news, (for anti-Catholics anyway) is that it’s been read and refuted all over the place. Have a look at The Boettner List: Fact or Fiction to see just how full of bunk it really is.

So how do we as Catholics prove our beliefs over those of the protestants?

One thing you seem to have forgotten. In debate…the person making the assertion bears the burden of proof. Call 'em on it. Simply tell 'em “Prove it.” and then check their responses against history, Catholic teaching, and the Word of God. It might just make you “mad as hell and not wanna take it anymore.” Which is a good thing…believe me.

I don’t care what anyone says…I can disprove, or at least clear up the misconceptions of just about any anti-Catholic with access to the internet.

I was Jesus Freak/Southern Baptist./Assembly of God/Non-denominational for over 34 years and I’m Catholic now and forever.

Why? Because I checked out all that junk a-Cs assert against the faith and discovered that it’s dead wrong. In the process I checked what they had taught me against the Bible and the verifiable historic writings of the early church and discovered that the religions of the post-reformation step-children actually bear very little resemblance to the real New Testament Christian church, regardless of their hype and being “New Testament churches”. It just plain ain’t the case.

Not for me man…no way. I’m Catholic down to my DNA and that will never change. It took several years of serious study and research to get here, but it was worth every second!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[mozart-250]

One thing you seem to have forgotten. In debate…the person making the assertion bears the burden of proof.

Pardon my continued twisted interest in this topic.

Church Militant is exactly correct. The person making the assertion bears the burden of proof.

So let’s narrow this down. Catholicism versus Protestantism. Since there are 6.391,038 denominations of Protestantism let’s narrow this down to us general evangelical/fundie/Southern Baptist/Assembly of God type Church Militant describes.

Then what are the assumptions. Let’s use as assumptions the commonalities between both. This would be therefore the Bible as the inspired Word of God and common beliefs concerning the Trinity and Christ (Chalcedon compliant is the term I think).

Then what are the assertions each side makes?

From reading this forum I gather the Catholic assertion is they are the “One True Church” and that Protestantism is a “heresy”. If this is not the assertion of the Catholic church, please correct me.

I am not sure what the other side would assert. You see, the other side is divided on the Catholic Church. It ranges from “False Church” to “Brothers in Christ” (see Evangelicals and Catholics Together). Charles Colson and John MacArthur disagree here. For arguments sake let’s use “False Church”.

We would be in agreement that “False Church” can not be proven.

My issue is that given the assumptions of common agreement between Catholics and Protestants, that the Catholic assertions likewise are unprovable. I will continue believing this until I find sufficient evidence based on the common assumptions.

If neither side can prove its assertions, wouldn’t it be desirable that both settle down and learn to live as “Brothers in Christ”.

 

[mlchance]

Hmm… here’s a challenge… Does the so-called doctrine of transubstantiation make a testable prediction?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[PaulusRobertus]

As saint Pius X, and all tradition, thaught, there are a lot of true arguments, that can be understood by all, about the truth of catholicism.

 

[Robo40]

I too have done much research in the history of the Church. This is what has led me back. I do find it interesting how It isnt the Catholics who go out to try to tell everyone else how wrong they are. Why is it that the people who leave the church feel they have to “set things right” Could it just be that “OH HOW I’VE BEEN FREED FROM TH BONDAGE OF THE CHURCH!” Mentality.
Still Protesting long after they have left the Church. My Grandfather left the Church 18 years ago and still brings it up in conversation nearly every time we talk. When you leave what you know is true for something that has been presented in a way that absolves you of all your human waekness and regulates every bowel movement to some act of the Holy Spirit or the Devil. Well, That has it’s allure. We must just keep praying for them that God the Almighty will have Mercy!

 

[mercygate]

If you’ve studied philosophy and theology, you will note that nothing seems proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Even one’s own existence has been doubted by some philosophers.

Beliefs are derived from three things:

1. experience
2. reason
3. testimony of others

One can reasonably conclude from the preponderance of evidence that Catholicism is true. That is not a proof in the strict sense. In fact, very few things believed by mankind are proven in this strict manner (called “deductive reasoning”). Other forms of non-deductive reasoning are certainly valid, and more commonly used to draw conclusions in all sorts of fields, such as science, law, economics, military studies, politics, philosophy, and theology.

Reasoning called “inductive” is exemplified by the following…

1. All observed beginnings have a cause
2. Therefore, everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Inductive reasoning is no strict proof, like deductive reasoning is, because a valid inductive argument is not guaranteed to be true. It can be highly probable, based upon the preponderance of evidence, but there may be that one-in-a-gazillion unobserved “beginning,” for instance, that didn’t have a cause. We simply cannot be absolutely sure in the strictest sense because we have not oberved everything that has had a beginning.

So, the best we can do is state that based upon the preponderance of evidence, every time we have observed something with a beginning, it has had a cause. Thus, we can infer from the significant statistical sample we have observed, that with great confidence, “everything which has a beginning has a cause.”

In deductive reasoning, if terms are clear, and the premises are true, and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises (the argument is valid), then the conclusion must be true.

For example,

1. Everything that has a beginning, has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If premise #1 and #2 are clearly understood and true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true.

Catholicism cannot be proven deductively like the example above. Nor has Catholicism been proven wrong. Nontheless, Catholicism can be shown to be a reasonable conclusion based upon non-deductive arguments.

itsjustdave1988 does it again!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Back to my original question. As Catholics we can say Catholicism can be proved by history, the unbroken line of Popes since Peter, the early Church Fathers, etc. But some of the Protestants have “claims” of their own, which I can’t really disprove either, so what do we do in a case like that? One arguement is the Baptist trail of blood (I think that’s what they call it). Another web site I was on disputed the fact that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity by saying Catholicism started in the 300’s. So how do we as Catholics prove our beliefs over those of the protestants?

My recommendation is to take one argument at a time, and test it, reason through it, prayerfully discern the truth of the matter. Your example of the “trail of blood” theory has been refuted by some of the best Baptist historians available. I recommend for that specific example, you read what it is they have to say, as it is as good a refutation of this erroneous Baptist thesis as any.

I also think you are using the word “proof” rather loosely. If you meant by “proof”, the many and various converging and convincing reasons why one believes the Catholic faith is true, then there are plenty, but they take time, and should be tailored to the target audience. If you mean by “proof” as in deductive logic, then there are none. It takes supernatural faith to believe, and that has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church. The apologists who contend there are “proofs” in the strict sense are not very convincing, either for or against Catholicism.

 

[franksv]

None of this stuff is science,thats why it’s called Faith.We don’t have the luxury that Thomas did,being able the stand before God after seeing him die and being able to put our fingers through the holes in his hands.After all the information,you must still listen for the whisper of the Holy Spirit and follow your heart.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for “trail of blood” theory, here’s what I’ve posted in other Protestant forums…

This lousy scholarship was refuted by Baptist scholar Leon McBeth in his book The Baptist Heritage…

Leon McBeth, professor of Church History at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, has served as chairman of the Texas Baptist Historical Committee, as president of the Historical Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and as president for the Southern Baptist Historical Society.

He states:

"Succession of Baptist Churches A fourth way of looking at Baptist history arose in the nineteenth century. Denying that Baptists originated from English Separatism and disdaining a continuity of mere principles, the Organic Successionist school would settle for nothing less than tracing actual Baptist churches from the New Testament to the present.

"Highlights of this view. By use of a “trail of blood” view of history, some affirmed that earlier dissenters were simply Baptists under other names. Thus such early groups as Donatists (fourth century), Cathari (eleventh century), Waldenses (twelfth century), and Anabaptists (sixteenth century) represent an unbroken continuity, or succession, of true biblical (Baptist) churches. This view is sometimes called the Jesus-Jordan-John, or JJJ theory, that Baptists originated with John the Baptist, Jesus, or baptisms in the Jordan. This theory assumes that John the Baptist represents a denominational affiliation and that Jesus formed a Baptist church and promised in Matthew 16:18 that Baptist churches would never vanish from the world. However, even among successionists, few have been willing to go so far as one historian, who traced Baptists back to Adam!

"In studying successionism, Patterson showed that there are variations within this group. Some hold that organic succession can be proven and that it is essential; others hold that succession is essential and does exist, but cannot be proven; others that it can be proven, but is not essential.

"Representative writers. Some historians who have advocated some version of successionism. include Adam Taylor, G. H. Orchard, D. B. Ray, J. M. Cramp, and J. M. Carroll. Though not primarily a historian, J. R. Graves also held and disseminated this view, especially among Southern Baptists.

"Adam Taylor published his two-volume work, The History of the English General Baptists, in 1818. Taylor’s table of contents lists “Book I. A Sketch of the History of the Baptists from the Commencement of the Christian Era to the Reformation.” He affirmed that “in all ages of the church there have been Baptists.” Taylor identified John the Baptist as the founder of the denomination, which has continued ever since.

"A more militant successionism was taught by G. H. Orchard, who published A Concise History of Baptists in England in 1838. Orchard sought to prove that Jesus established a Baptist church, that Baptist churches (under various names) have continued throughout history, and that such successionism is essential to church validity. Orchard began with Matthew 11:12, and the phrase, “from the days of John the Baptist until now, …” captures his view of Baptist history.

"Orchard’s book had its greatest impact in the United States. J. R. Graves, a leader of the Landmark movement, republished Orchard in 1855 and distributed it throughout the South. Graves included an “Introductory Essay,” affirming that “all Christian communities during the first three centuries were of the Baptist denomination,” that despite use of various names these Baptist churches never disappeared, and that Baptists can use this information in debates with other denominations.

"Perhaps the most vivid example of successionist history is the booklet by J. M. Carroll, The Trail of Blood. Published posthumously in 1931, this booklet has gone through dozens of editions and is still being republished. This booklet is a popularization of Orchard’s ideas, but includes a vivid chart which purports to show that “according to History … Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since Christ.” Baptists are traced back through the centuries by a series of connected red dots representing the blood of those who have suffered for the true faith, thus a “trail of blood.” The “false churches” (i.e., all that are not Baptist), are traced by a line graph. This chart is set forth as “Illustrating the History of the Baptist Churches from the time of their founder, the Lord Jesus Christ, until the 20th century.”

"Other works which embrace church successionism include J. M. Cramp, Baptist History: From the Foundation of the Christian Church to the Close of the Eighteenth Century, D. B. Ray, Baptist Succession: A Hand-Book of Baptist History (1883); and John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists (1922). …

Continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Continued…

Though not widely known, these books are still sometimes quoted. No major historian today holds to the organic succession of Baptist churches. This view was based on inadequate sources, was more polemical than historical, and made large assumptions where evidence was lacking. This interpretation arose in a time of intense denominational competition and helped reassure some Baptists that theirs was the true church. It received wide dissemination in the South by becoming identified with Landmarkism. J. R. Graves insisted that Baptists “are descended from the Waldenses, whose historical line reaches far back and connects with the Donatists, and theirs to the Apostolic Churches” (pgs. 58-60)

One need only study what the Donatists, the Waldenses, and all those other heretical sects taught to know that it has nothing in common with what Baptists teach. They are not “proto-Baptists.” This is clear to any historian who has looked at the historical evidence of these various sects. Even Baptists historians reject this false thesis.

The “Baptists” began with John Smyth in 1609, when he baptized himself (BY POURING,* ironically enough…where’s baptizing one’s self in Scripture??), and then he baptized the others in his parish. Poof…the first Baptist Church is founded. This according to BAPTIST historians.

*According to Baptist scholar William B. Lipphard, pouring was employed for baptism by these initial Baptists until 1641. (*Religions of America, *Rosten, L., Ed., revised edition, 1975, pg. 36).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…
If neither side can prove its assertions, wouldn’t it be desirable that both settle down and learn to live as “Brothers in Christ”.

Hmmmm… I cannot prove that the “dark side” of the moon actually exists. I’ve never seen it. Nor has anyone else, for that matter, excepting those who have orbited the moon (presuming such a thing *actually *happened and was not merely “faked” ).

Does that then mean that there are not convincing arguments based upon the preponderance of evidence which compels me to assert what I believe to be true? I cannot simultaneously countenance what I believe to be false while at the same time profess and hold fast to what I believe to be true.

Thus, if trustworthy testimony, reason, experience, and the preponderance of evidence leds me to believe Catholicism, I must then reject what the Baptists teach insofar as it is contrary to Catholicism. I can certainly love my brethren in Christ, but I must follow the Lord, and Thus saith the Lord, through the Holy Bible…“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:” (Titus 3:10). “Obey your leaders and submit to them.” (Heb 13:17)

It seems reasonable that if I am to obey Titus 3:10 and Heb 13:17, then I need to know who my leaders are; I need to have a means to know, apart from my mere fallible opinion, when one is a “heretic.” I need a “pillar and bulwark of truth” in my life. In the NT we are given a Scriptural example of how such disputes are resoved. The Bible commands that we are to “listen to the Church” as the final arbiter of disputes between brethren (Matt 18:15ff). This I must do.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Another web site I was on disputed the fact that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity by saying Catholicism started in the 300’s…

For this claim, see here…

What was the first church? - View

Did the Bishop of Rome originally have only “primacy of honor?” - View

 

[mozart-250]

Hmmmm… I cannot prove that the “dark side” of the moon actually exists. I’ve never seen it. Nor has anyone else, for that matter, excepting those who have orbited the moon (presuming such a thing *actually *happened and was not merely “faked” ).).

And you just got me thinking of Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon…one of under 20 bands of the musical genre “Rock” that show some level of creativity. Just thinking off “The Wall” here.

But then again I am a Classical Music bigot.

Does that then mean that there are not convincing arguments based upon the preponderance of evidence which compels me to assert what I believe to be true? I cannot simultaneously contenance what I believe to be false while at the same time hold fast to what I believe to be true.

Thus, if reason, experience, and the preponderance of evidence leds me to believe Catholicism, I must then reject what the Baptists teach insofar as it is contrary to Catholicism. I can certainly love my brethren in Christ, but I must follow the Lord, and Thus saith the Lord, through the Holy Bible…“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:” (Titus 3:10).

It seems reasonable that if I am to obey Titus 3:10, then I need to have a means to know, apart from my mere opinion, when one is a “heretic.” In the NT we are given a Scriptural example of how such disputes are resoved. The Bible commands that we are to “listen to the Church” as the final arbiter (Matt 18:15ff).

What is the preponderance of evidence that leads you to conclude that Catholicism is the “One True Church” and that us poor “Protestants” are lowly “heretics” ? How come when I look at the same evidence I can’t reach that conclusion?

Could it be an issue of the metrics used and the weights applied to said metrics.

From where I sit, it appears that the Catholic applies very much weight to the metric of lineage, and I’m sitting here questioning just how important is that metric anyway.

Anyway, the more one branch of Christianity tries to establish themselves as the “One True Church” in opposition to everyone else, the more I want to see a preponderance of evidence that is indeed the case.

 

[dcdurel]

We can certainly prove that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

But, as far as proving the teachings are true, then that is the same as proving God’s teachings are true.

For example, we know about the Trinity, only because God has revealed it. We cannot prove the Trinity is true, but we take in on faith. And by faith, I don’t mean we believe it blindly, but we believe it because God has revealed it.

Of course, even to believe in God takes faith, but this faith is a gift from God. Faith is not contrary to reason, but it is above reason. And God sometimes gives us helps to our faith, such as miracles, etc.

 

[mozart-250]

We can certainly prove that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

You might be able to prove that the lineage of the Catholic Church goes back to St. Peter. If there are non-Catholic historians out there who agree that is a historical fact, then I could buy into it. At any rate, I do not contest that at this point in time.

That has not been a big issue to me anyway.

What you can not prove without additional assumptions, is that lineage means therefore that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and that we by definition are heretics.

The Catholic Church split. The additional assumptions would be how God viewed the split and how God still views the split about 500 years after the fact.

I could just as easily counter (as some do) that the split was a righteous revolt against an apostate ecclesiastical organization that God already pronounced Ichabod over.

But then that would be another assumption. The fact is that I can not presume to speak for God in this matter.

 

[Logan]

Thanks all, these are good comments. One more: how do you handle it when they jump to another question before you can answer the last question? Then they refuse to go back or even listen to your answer, that burns me up and then I look bad because my temper flares up.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…What is the preponderance of evidence that leads you to conclude that Catholicism is the “One True Church” and that us poor “Protestants” are lowly “heretics” ?..

Broadly speaking, I suggest your epistemology is different than that of the 1st century Christians, and as such, you conclude an incorrect ecclesiology. Built upon an incorrect epistemology and ecclesiology, Protestantism has diverged into many varied and conflicting belief systems.

Nonetheless, it is best to narrow the discussion of “evidence”, if that was your intent, by looking at a specific example of “the evidence”…the book of Daniel.

The Protestant Book of Daniel is truncated from the Christian recension which came before it. If Protestantism cannot even recognize what the Sacred Scripture is, then how can I trust that they have authentically interpreted Holy Writ?

Protestants often claim that they accept the scholarship of Jerome and Origen with regard to the contents of Sacred Scripture. Yet, both Jerome and Origen had a larger recension of the Book of Daniel than that professed by Protestants.

According to The Additions to the Book of Daniel within the Protestant Bible, *New Annotated Oxford Bible, *edited by Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger:

… the ancient Greek version of the Book of Daniel is considerably longer than the surviving Hebrew text. … All Greek witnesses place the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Jews in Dan ch. 3…

The Greek translation made by Theodotion … includes all the outstanding passages in the Greek Daniel as integral parts of the book … The Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic versions follow Theodotion.

… Jerome’s Latin Vulgate followed Theodotion

Theodotian was a Hebrew and Greek scholar of the 2nd century whose version of Daniel contained the Septuagintal portions. What did the early Christian Churches accept? According to Jerome’s scholarship, which Protestants unconvincing claim to accept, the Churches accepted the version from the 2nd century Jew Theodotian instead of the shorter version of the 10th century Masoretic text of Daniel. From the Qumran findings, we know that in the 1st century, there were various recensions of the same Hebrew books stored together. From this evidence we can conclude that which particular Hebrew recension was definitive was still open, even among the Hebrews. Which begs the question, which recensions were Divinely inspired? Why did Jerome accept the Hebrew recension translated by Theodotian? According to Jerome’s own words in his refutation of Rufinius, he accepted this version of Daniel because it was “the judgement of the Churches.” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

According to Bruce Metzger, ALL Greek witnesses, Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic follow Theodotion. The textual evidence from Christian manuscripts is overwhelmingly in favor of the larger Daniel, right? Yet, unlike Jerome or Origen, or any other early Church Father, Protestantism rejected it. Why? By what authority?

Surely there must be compelling evidence that the early Christians must have discarded the Theodotian Book of Daniel in favor of a shorter recension, right? If so, what is the compelling Christian patristic evidence of the first 1000 years of Christianity which successfully argues for abandoning the Theodotian Daniel in favor of the shorter Masoretic (Jewish) recension? All of the thousands of Christian manuscripts of other than fragmentary form include the larger recension of the Book of Daniel, right?

 

[mozart-250]

Broadly speaking, I suggest your epistemology is different than that of the 1st century Christians, and as such, you conclude an incorrect ecclesiology. Built upon an incorrect epistemology and ecclesiology, Protestantism has diverged into many varied and conflicting belief systems.

FYI: I am a Database Administrator by Profession and a musician by passion. Although I probably am better informed than 90% of my church (as you might be 99% of your parish) of theology and history, in the end my knowledge is and always will be at an armchair level.

For example I have heard of the big word ecclesiology but not big word epistemology (I must sound really stupid).

I do think that God has blessed me with a fairly intelligent and logical mind, and I try to evaluate things with a sense of fairness. Sometimes however, I sense there are things that are beyond my skill set to evaluate, and on those things (instead of going to a web site and mindlessly regurgating stuff I really don’t understand) I would be inclined to back off and concede that I don’t have the skills and knowledge to evaluate.that issue fairly.

That’s ok, because I expect God to work in my life according to the gifts and calling he has placed me in.

BTW the 8,234,985 denominations of Protestantism is something I have wondered about. To be fair, if I were Catholic questioning my faith, that would be a big barrier for me to becoming Protestant. My first question would be “which denomination”? 500 years after the fact, I question whether multiple ecclesiastical organizations is really what God had in mind, but it is what He has at this time.

Nonetheless, it is best to narrow the discussion of “evidence”, if that was your intent, by looking at a specific example of “the evidence”…the book of Daniel.

Ah…source of faith argument. I have always wondered how you go about proving a source of faith. And now the 66 versus 73 versus 81 books of the Bible issue.

I question whether I have the skill set to evaluate this fairly. Now I could just regurgitate this website or I could regurgitate this website. Both summarize intelligent and credible arguments for their respective positions.

This website seems a little more scholarly, and just browsing this site sort of confirms that the underlying issues here are historical and require an in depth knowledge of Church History to sort out with fairness that I don’t have.

BTW there was a thread a while back on this topic and a poster that did have this type of knowledge (contarini) I believe stated that both sides oversimplified the issues here. Since he seems to be a “fair and balanced” type of guy, I tend to defer to his knowledge on historical issues.