Why is the Catholic Religion the truth?

[Tantum_ergo]

And the churches in Corinth etc. are not to be equated with denominations of today. They either taught the true teachings, or they made mistakes about the true teachings, which is what can and does happen when one attempts to interpret everything on one’s own (which is why St. Peter was ‘against’ personal interpretation). The reasons the churches in Corinth differ from say the Baptist or the Church of Christ churches today is that they submitted to authority and stopped doing wrong when Paul or Peter or James corrected them; and understood that with all sorts of conflicting ‘interpretations’, somebody had to guide them, as Philip guided the eunuch. That ‘somebody’ is the Catholic Church, which has apostolic succession as Jesus gave us and the Spirit showed us.

Why are you so sure that your church’s Bible, be it KJV or ‘other’, is the ‘real’ Bible when you know from reading it that there were ‘false’ teachings going on, and that they did not cease with the death of the apostles? Where did that Bible come from?

 

[julebenn]

The Bible is inspired by God: is not given by the church, but to the church.

The Scriptures are the rule of faith because they are the Word of God and not because they were approved by the authority of the church.

I’m guessing you will also profess the magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is it’s servant. I can no way
challenge it;s teaching by appealing to the Bible, since they claim that only the magisterium can interpret the Scriptures correctly.

Once again you can always fall fall back on Tradition and no one knows the content of tradition apart from the teaching of the magisterium.

Also apostolic succession or being able to trace a church’s roots back to the first church is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church. A true church is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church.

Peter begins by mentioning that we have a “more sure word” to depend upon than even hearing the voice of God from heaven as they did at Jesus’ transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-21). This “more sure word” is the written Word of God. Peter later tells them again to be mindful of “the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 3:2). Both the words of the holy prophets and the commandments Jesus gave to the apostles are recorded in Scripture.

 

[Abira]

Hiya Della and Slowly…

just ignore this in the thread cos it’s kind of an aside note to something I read early on and I don’t want to disrupt the flow!

Hinduism in a monotheistic religion… I think I remember Slowly saying s/he was unsure of the termonology.

There is one God in their faith… the different ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’ are actually just visual representations of the different sides or parts of God. My impression was that this was supposed to make God easier to understand…and all of the stories involving their different ‘gods’ are almost like moral lessons or parables using the different characters to tell us something of God… or an aspect of God. They seem to find that easier to explain dual natures, and also to allow people to be ‘scared’ and feel ‘safe’ with God at the same time by separating the characteristics out. I’m no expert though - I only visited a place once but this was the biggest thing I was asked to take away with me lol

It just confuses me … but there is only one God shown through different representations: monotheistic (sorry that was kinda long… ) Hope that helps you out if you’re doing some kind of study or something.

S x

 

[julebenn]

Is not the first church in the New Testament the original church and one true church? Is it not described, in great detail, in Scripture?

I don’t understand if the Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles.

You are kidding, right?
A. Mary did not die until some time after Jesus’s resurrection.
However, most certainly the “the one true church” of the Scipture (the believers) prayed to her and the saints. Not only do we have documentation of this in the early Church Fathers, it is only the comparatively recent ‘change’ of the word ‘prayer’ by Protestants, who use it so narrowly, that this even becomes a question.
To pray means, to ask. If you think that nobody in the one true church asked others to pray for them, you don’t know Scripture. Because they most certainly did so. And have done so, unbroken, for 2000 years in the one true church. I’m afraid those who don’t are the ones at fault. . .due to man-made error.
B. Venerating Mary (Gee, Luke 2 tells us that not only did the angel Gabriel venerate her–again some Protestants want to narrow the word down–but "all generations shall call me blessed.) I suppose next they will start saying we can’t ‘honor our father and mother’ because HONOR will only be for God. . . Again, practiced by all Christians for centuries; denied by some in recent times due to man-made error.
C. Peter was the first Pope. Scriptural. Christ-given. Biblically based. Head of the church. Acknowledged as such by all Christians for centuries, before and after “the Bible”. Questioned by some due to man-made error.
D. Select priesthood. Read your old testament lately? God doesn’t change; if the Jews had a select priesthood (and they did), then Christians will have the same. Acknowledged by all Christian for centuries; questioned recently by some due to man-made error.
E. Baptizing an infant. Scriptural. Peter baptized whole households. “Whole households”, not ‘adults only.’ Has been a practice of the entire Christian culture for centuries; questioned relatively recently by some due to man-made error.
F. Baptism, confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimonty. All Scriptural, all sacraments, all held as such for 1500 years of Christianity. Questioned by some recently due to man-made error.
G. Apostolic authority–Held by all Christians for centuries; still held by the one true church today. Questioned by some due to man-made error.

And finally:

Here is a big error for you. . .

Groups which claim to be ‘the one true church’ based on flawed interpretation of the Bible, who can not point out where in the Bible it says that ‘it’ (the Bible) is the only authority. Especially when we consider those pesky 350 years where there was no written Bible and those pesky 1500 years or so afterward when most people could not even read said Bible. . .

 

[julebenn]

You are kidding, right?
A. Mary did not die until some time after Jesus’s resurrection.
However, most certainly the “the one true church” of the Scipture (the believers) prayed to her and the saints. Not only do we have documentation of this in the early Church Fathers, it is only the comparatively recent ‘change’ of the word ‘prayer’ by Protestants, who use it so narrowly, that this even becomes a question.

A true test of Christianity is not what the Church Fathers
teach. Can be helpful though… not what saith the Fathers, but rather “Thus saith the Lord!”

To pray means, to ask. If you think that nobody in the one true church asked others to pray for them, you don’t know Scripture. Because they most certainly did so. And have done so, unbroken, for 2000 years in the one true church. I’m afraid those who don’t are the ones at fault. . .due to man-made error.

God wants us to pray for each other as an expression of our unity and solidarity. I can Pray to God directly why ask someone who has already gone to heaven, they cannot hear my prayer.

B. Venerating Mary (Gee, Luke 2 tells us that not only did the angel Gabriel venerate her–again some Protestants want to narrow the word down–but "all generations shall call me blessed.) I suppose next they will start saying we can’t ‘honor our father and mother’ because HONOR will only be for God. . . Again, practiced by all Christians for centuries; denied by some in recent times due to man-made error.

Bible clearly teaches us that we should pray to God and that God alone knows our hearts (1 Kings 8:39)? Why would people ask grace from Mary, when the Bible teaches us that all grace comes from God (1 Peter 5:10)?

C. Peter was the first Pope. Scriptural. Christ-given. Biblically based. Head of the church. Acknowledged as such by all Christians for centuries, before and after “the Bible”. Questioned by some due to man-made error.

Donlt agree…“rock” to refer to the confession of faith made by Simon Peter.

D. Select priesthood. Read your old testament lately? God doesn’t change; if the Jews had a select priesthood (and they did), then Christians will have the same. Acknowledged by all Christian for centuries; questioned recently by some due to man-made error.

All believers are called Priest “kings and priests” and a “royal priesthood” as a reflection of their privileged status as heirs to the kingdom of the Almighty God and of the Lamb.

I’ll have to get back on the rest tomorrow out of time…

 

[Mimi]

In post #38, slowly (the OP) wrote, in part:

"I can see from all the responses here that Catholics regard the historical evidence for the authority of the Church in great regard and also as crucial for their faith.

The fact is that seemingly rational and intelligent historical scolars from not only Protestant Religions but also from the Mormon Religion, with access to the same historical documents and reasearch techniques that Catholic scolars have, are able to confirm their own interpretation of God’s will within history."

Not only is there history, which some may still say is not accurate, but there is archeological evidence. AFAIK, Mormonism has zero archeological evidence to give credence to anything they believe (golden tablets; wasn't Jesus supposed to have appeared to the Native Americans?).

The pagan emperor Hadrian wanted to destroy Christian sites, suchas the mount of the Ascension; he built temples over these sites, but the result was he actually preserved them. The early Christians were no dummies; they remembered where these sites were, and when the later Christians came back to the Holy Land, they pointed out Hadrian's work. Underneath, sure enough, Christian work. I heard this recently on EWTN (Steven Ray). Verrry Interesting.

Pray for the Truth to be revealed to you, slowly!

Peace,
Mimi

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Bible is inspired by God: is not given by the church, but to the church.

The Bible was collected or gathered by the Church through the Council of Rome (382 AD), Council of Hippo (392 AD), and Council of Carthage). The Bible consist of the both OT and NT text.

Those Canon of Scripture include the Deutorocanonical books, which the Protestant removed during the Reformation.

The Scriptures are the rule of faith because they are the Word of God and not because they were approved by the authority of the church.

The Scripture was approved by the Catholic Church. Did you know in the early Christian Church there were other Gospels? Like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas? The Church reject these Gospels and for those Councils which we see in our Bible today (except Protestant Bible only have 66 OT text).

I’m guessing you will also profess the magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is it’s servant. I can no way
challenge it;s teaching by appealing to the Bible, since they claim that only the magisterium can interpret the Scriptures correctly.

The Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit. How can the Holy Spirit be superior to Himself? I think you don’t understand Catholic terminology like most Non-Catholic Christians here. The Holy Spirit is God.

Once again you can always fall fall back on Tradition and no one knows the content of tradition apart from the teaching of the magisterium.

In Catholicism there are two traditions, Tradition and tradition. The small tradition refers are like candles in the Church. The Big Traditions are the traditions which Paul taught.

2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

1 Cor 11:2, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition.

1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture.

In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Also apostolic succession or being able to trace a church’s roots back to the first church is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church. A true church is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church.

Peter begins by mentioning that we have a “more sure word” to depend upon than even hearing the voice of God from heaven as they did at Jesus’ transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-21). This “more sure word” is the written Word of God. Peter later tells them again to be mindful of “the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 3:2). Both the words of the holy prophets and the commandments Jesus gave to the apostles are recorded in Scripture.

The Trinity not even in the Scripture or Sunday worship is now the requirement observing the Sabbath.

Jesus gave an authoritative Church he gave his Apostles, and the Apostles handed their authority to the bishops. If you go to the Mid-East, you will find some of the original Christian Churches like in Ephesus, Antioch, and others are still there. I think they are Eastern Orthodox Christians…

Their line goes straight back to the Apostles…
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#tradition-I

 

[Robert902]

Robert, along with those writers of the New Testament were several other writers. Books written include the Didache (authored by the apostles), The Shepherd of Hermas, The Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of Thomas. All were part of the spoken teachings at some point; some are still considered as authentic but not ‘inspired’, some are frankly gnostic and not authentic teachings at all.

For the first 350 years of Christianity, the early Christians both heard, and spoke, of the Jewish scriptures (known now as the Old Testament), portions up to and including all of the works now known as the New Testament, and portions up to and including all the other books above as well as things which are mentioned only by name but do not survive or survive only as fragments.

So for those 350 years there was no ‘Bible’ as we know it today.

The Bible as we know it was assembled through the guidance of the Holy Spirit using **Catholic men **(there were absolutely no other authentic Christians save Catholics; any who professed themselves Christian but not a part of ‘the Catholic Church’ were gnostics and heretics of whom absolutely no trace, succession, or heritage remains today. IOW, there were no Baptists hiding out for 1600 years until it was ‘safe’. There were no Episcopalians, Lutherans, Church of Christ, Quakers, Shakers, Anabaptists, or non-denoms. There were not even any Orthodox Christians.

The Bible is the product of The Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church had the Spirit given authority to proclaim **which ** of the many scriptures reviewed was the authentic word of God. As Jesus promised His apostles, the power to ‘bind and loose’ resided in His Catholic Church. This is proven by the fact that, generations after the death of the last of His apostles, the written word was still ‘bound’ by the word of the successors of those apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I hate to even ask this question here, because whenever I do pose a question about Catholic church authority I am ridiculed. Oh well here goes. First, let me say up front that if your response isn’t found in The Bible KJV, you’re wasting your time responding.
In reading the Book of Acts, I find that the foundation of God’s church was laid by The Prophets and The Apostles and the Head of the church is Jesus Christ , and the body is the true believers.
In light of this (God’s word) what gives the Catholic church authority as God’s true and only church?

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Mannyfit75]

I hate to even ask this question here, because whenever I do pose a question about Catholic church authority I am ridiculed. Oh well here goes. First, let me say up front that if your response isn’t found in The Bible KJV, you’re wasting your time responding.
In reading the Book of Acts, I find that the foundation of God’s church was laid by The Prophets and The Apostles and the Head of the church is Jesus Christ , and the body is the true believers.
In light of this (God’s word) what gives the Catholic church authority as God’s true and only church?

God Bless,
Robert

The Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ. He build his Church upon Peter, and the Apostles. The Apostles then handed their authority to their successors to the present day.

That is why the Catholic openly professes that the Catholic Church is the One Church of Christ. This is supported in Scripture and history.

 

[onenow1]

Hi,
Jesus taught the apostles to pray directly to the Father, as I hope we all do today. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light; all of truths are in the our Father. In fact it lays out the gospels. It also fly’s in the face of, once saved alway’s saved.

We ask the Father to deliver us on a daily basis !
The Father says listen to Him ! Matt. 17:5, = My Son speaks the truth !

                     Seven Sacrements

__________________________________________________.
1.Baptism - John 3: 5,Titus. 3: 5, Acts. 2: 37-38, Acts. 33: 16, 1Cor. 6: 11, Romans. 6: 4, 1 Peter. 3:21

2.Confession- Matt. 9: 2-8, John. 20: 23, 2 cor. 5: 17-20, James. 5: 13- 16, Matt. 18: 18, 1 John. 5:16.

3.Eucharist- JOHN. 6: 35-71

4.Confirmation Acts. 19: 5-6, Acts. 8: 14-17, 2 cor. 1: 21-22
Eph. 1: 13, Heb. 6: 2,

5.Matrimony- Matt. 19: 5-6, Mark. 10: 7-12, Eph. 5: 22-32, Heb. 13: 4.

6.Holy Orders-Acts. 20: 28, Luke. 22: 19, John. 20: 20-22, Acts. 6: 6, Acts. 13: 3, Acts. 14: 22, 1Tim. 4: 14, 2 Tim. 1-6, Titus.

7.Anointing of the sick - Mark. 6: 12-13, James. 5: 14-15.

As far as I know the Catholic Church, the only church that teaches seven sacrements. This is what the church teaches this is what we believe!

Peace, OneNow1

 

[slowly]

The Bible was collected or gathered by the Church through the Council of Rome (382 AD), Council of Hippo (392 AD), and Council of Carthage).

In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

This is a circular argument:

The church compiled the Bible. The Bible in turn asserts the Catholic Church’s authority.

I can also write a book that asserts me as the authority on Religion and God. People are unlikely to take me seriously though, so why do they take the Church seriously?

 

[Lazerlike42]

This is a circular argument:

The church compiled the Bible. The Bible in turn asserts the Catholic Church’s authority.

I can also write a book that asserts me as the authority on Religion and God. People are unlikely to take me seriously though, so why do they take the Church seriously?

You are right about the circularity of the argument. It is just begging the question. The argument above is one that is appropriate for Protestants, who already accept the Bible as authoritative, but not for non-Christians.

It all goes back to Jesus Christ. The authority of the Church, which then gave us the Bible, comes from Jesus Christ. If we can look at the historical, archaeological, and other such evidence and conclude that Jesus died and rose, therein we have a basis for the authority of the Church.

I would recommend you visit veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/130 and listen to one of Dr. Craig’s analysis of the Resurrection. You might also check out his debates, found in transcript form here. I especially recommend these, because when one examines them critically, one realizes that Dr. Craig’s opponents do not even touch his arguments (and often never try). Some of the links here also contain audio or video, such as this one’, which contains a video of the debate.

 

[slowly]

You are right about the circularity of the argument. It is just begging the question. The argument above is one that is appropriate for Protestants, who already accept the Bible as authoritative, but not for non-Christians.

Good point.

It seems to me that some of the disagreements between Protestants and Catholics arise because of a difference of interpretation of the teachings, doctrine and organization of the church as it was in the time of Peter and Paul. I have been trying to follow these arguments but to me it appears that the Bible is not particularly clear about these aspects, hence the disagreements.

When I read the arguments (and the scripturual references) on either side with a sympathetic ear I cannot help but be temporarily convinced about each side’s interpretation of the true church. And yet I know that they cannot both be right. I also know that both Catholics and Protestant would generally deny that there exists any uncertainty here and yet how else am I to interpret the confusion that is evident here?

What if the Bible happened to have had a book or chapter that clearly stated the authority of the church (even giving in unambiguous terms the exact name of the church), explaining the Magisterium (calling it by this name), explaining the hierarchy and authority of the Church, explaining the sacrements, everything that is core to the teachings of the Church, all in one well written chapter, using unambiguous language that is easy translatable to other languages. Maybe there will always be different interpretations of such texts no matter how clear they are. I am sure however that we would have had way less than the 30000 Christian denominations we have currently.

Yet doctrinal arguments between Catholic and Protestant adherents tend to reference verses from different books, from different contexts and from different authors all over the Bible. The language is often ambiguous using terms that seem to cause endless confusion and arguments between the churches.

If the Bible is really God’s word, is this the best He could do? Surely not! I am not sure what to make of this but I can think only of two possibilities: Either the Bible is not the perfect inerrant word of God or it is and He wanted to confuse us. He wanted to make it difficult for us to know what the true church is (not that I understand why He would do such a thing).

Of course I realize that generally Protestants and Catholics do not experience any confusion about their Religion. However, from outside Christians do appear ultimately confused (30000 denominations, endless debates about the true church).

And no, the Magisterium does not help us here. You first have to accept a particular interpretation of the Bible to even get to the Magisterium.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Again Slowly

                    The Nicene Creed is the oath we Catholics repeat every Sunday. You have to remember we Catholics accept the teaching Church; and the real truth is other denoms really have no authority, all Christianity flows from the Catholic Church, historically undeniable. Unfortunately they distort the Catholic Church with myths, and sometimes out and out lies. Jesus established his church on Peter the Rock; we accept this authority of the Church. I believe you just have a problem with accepting that Jesus left us with a represenitve hear on earth. Jesus came in the flesh to teach the Apostles; Luke. 10:16," Anyone who listens to you listens to me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me." He doese'nt say anyone who reads scripture listens to me. He well knew written words can be taken out of context by man.

This is what Martin Luther said about the bible. “We are compelled to concede to the Papists That they have the word of God, that we have received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge at all.”

Peace, OneNow1

 

[slowly]

Hi, Again Slowly

                    The Nicene Creed is the oath we Catholics repeat every Sunday. You have to remember we Catholics accept the teaching Church; and the real truth is other denoms really have no authority, all Christianity flows from the Catholic Church, historically undeniable. Unfortunately they distort the Catholic Church with myths, and sometimes out and out lies. Jesus established his church on Peter the Rock; we accept this authority of the Church. I believe you just have a problem with accepting that Jesus left us with a represenitve hear on earth. Jesus came in the flesh to teach the Apostles; Luke. 10:16," Anyone who listens to you listens to me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me." He doese'nt say anyone who reads scripture listens to me. He well knew written words can be taken out of context by man.

This is what Martin Luther said about the bible. “We are compelled to concede to the Papists That they have the word of God, that we have received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge at all.”

Peace, OneNow1

As far as I understand though the reason that you believe that Jesus left the Church as a representitive on earth is because of your interpretations of certain verses in the Bible. You are back to the question of interpretation that exists between Catholics and Protestants.

 

[onenow1]

As far as I understand though the reason that you believe that Jesus left the Church as a representitive on earth is because of your interpretations of certain verses in the Bible. You are back to the question of interpretation that exists between Catholics and Protestants.

You are correct ! However as I pointed out the Nicene creed is the bond that brings cohesiveness to the body of the Church. Oneness is a necessity for full communion. There are so many diverging views in the other denominations full communion becomes impossible. Now I"m not saying all Catholics are in full communion with the Church, they certainly are not, they excomunicate themselves and don’t even know it for the most part. The real problem is not interpertation but authority. Without an authority you have a disfunctional team for christ.

John. 17: 20, I pray not only for these but also for those who through there teaching will come to believe in me.

John. 17: 21, May they all be one just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they may also be in us.

John. 17: 23, With me in them and you in me, may they be so perfected in unity that the world will recognise that it was you who sent me and that you have loved them as you have loved me.

Even in one denomination their communion is shattered because of individualism or realitivism in theological matters. Now I ask you which Church has not deviated for 2000yrs
theologically ? Remember we are corporal and spiritual bodys Jesus came to us in body to teach; And thats why scripture says He taught with authority.

 

[StevenFrancis]

When the NT was written by the founding fathers of THE CHURCH, there were no Protestants. There was only THE CHURCH established by Jesus upon Peter, and passed on through succession. There was no expectation during the writings of the NT that there would be disagreements in interpretation to the degree we have today, especially since St. Paul and others went to such incredible efforts to get and keep everyone on the same page. THE CHURCH has a Magesterium to keep the interpretations of the canon of THE CHURCH inerrantly singular to the letter and spirit in which they were written. There is no cirularity as implied in other posts. There was only one CHURCH intended by Jesus, who is the Word of God. It was to include all. Jew and Gentile alike. There was no expectation of future religions such as Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Christ Science, etc. etc. etc., nor of Protestant Christianity. Pre-Christian religions, apart from Judaism were rendered obsolete. Judaism was fulfilled. God, says I am the alpha and omega. Jesus is the way and the light, and THE CHURCH is his bride.

As for disagreements with the THE CHURCH, once one is a practicing, faithful member of THE CHURCH, and living the sacramental life, disagreements with doctrine may be presented to THE CHURCH, and if they bear out against the Dogma, apostolic tradition, and are not heretical, they may be considered. The Church has made many superficial changes that did not effect the sanctity of the original Word, and Sacred tradition. They even ended up adopting some of the ideas of Martin Luther, who after all, was a brilliant theologian.

Since Jesus tells us that THE CHURCH will exist for the remainder of eternity, I have full faith that he will also draw us all together and bind us into his ONE church AGAIN in the fullness of time. It is already here for us. I will not see that day in human form, but it is the prayer of my heart.

Read
Study Church History DEEPLY
DISCERN DISCERN DISCERN

I hold no doubt where you will end up.

The peace of the Lord be with you all,

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is a circular argument:

The church compiled the Bible. The Bible in turn asserts the Catholic Church’s authority.

The Church was before the Bible. The Books of Acts was written around 70-90 A.D. It describe an event 30-40 yrs earlier. Consider Paul’s conversion.
Acts 9:4-5:

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”

Paul often refer the Church as the Body of Christ. So the Church came before the Bible.

The Bible back then was not united or canonized. Each of these writings were written in ancient manuscripts. The original ones were lost due to the Roman Empire persecution, and the only one we have are fragments of the NT texts. Many of these manuscript were preserved by the Monastic monks.

The Bible asserts its Authority because Pope Damascus I in 382 A.D proclaim them to be inspired. You should also take note in the first 300 years of Christian, there were other Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Acts Paul, Gospel of Judas. The Church in the councils rejected those and only keep 27 NT to include the 4 Synoptic Gospels.

I can also write a book that asserts me as the authority on Religion and God. People are unlikely to take me seriously though, so why do they take the Church seriously?

They must take the Church seriously because Jesus establish the One Church. He establish His Church upon Peter, “You are Peter, and Upon this Rock I will Built My Church.”

Jesus give authority to his Apostles. In the first Century, Jesus did not write the Bible. He preached orally by word of mouth. His preaching was not written after 30-40 yrs after the Resurrection. For the most part, the preaching was done by His Apostles. John in his writings also wrote that there are other things that Jesus did not written. If they were, there would be no book to contain it.

The Church has authority because Jesus said to his apostles, “He who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you, rejects me.”

Rejecting the Church is rejecting Jesus. So yes, Jesus established an authorize Church.

Further explanation:

The Church:
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

The Primacy of Peter:

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Apostolic Succession:

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Scripture Catholic

scripturecatholic.com/