None of this comes to us outside of the authority and power given to the apostles by Jesus himself, which they in turn handed on. The authority of the Church guarantees the Bible is true, and that’s why the Church also has the authority to interpret it for current events. God did not leave us orphans and he did not leave us without a way of interpreting the signs of the times and knowing truth for our situation and time.

Anyway, the books:

Free From All Error: Authorship, inerrancy, historicity of scripture, church teaching, and modern scripture scholars. Fr. William G. Most. 2009. Marytown Press.

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned answers to questions of faith. Peter J. Kreeft and Fr. Ronald K. Tacelli. 2009. Ignatius Press. I recommend Chapter 9, “The Bible: Myth or History?” for the purposes of this kind of discussion.

I believe the answer to the question at hand does require faith as well as strong irrefutable facts. Any form of knowledge requires, as stated by Descartes; true justified belief, and of course Aristotle’s first principals. Meaning, to have a philosophical view, which this is, our first statements or principals have to be true.

The Old Testament(Covenant) was written and compiled by the Jews. Some were kings, some were farmers, cup bearers and so on. Yet, even though they were written hundred years apart by different men in different regions, all attributed to God the qualities we know of God now. All said the same thing about God.

Jesus was a fulfillment of over 333 prophecies an mathematically impossible anyone to accomplish. For those who had an ear, they heard, and those who eyes, they saw.

By the time the letters(epistles and gospels) were in circulation we had first hand witnesses and thier disciples. If any of these doctrines or gospels were incorrect, they were plenty of folks to say so.

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:8-10 (NKJV)
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
Romans 10:14-15 (NKJV)
You guys are awesome. God bless.

I work at an Episcopal church. I attend a bible study for the staff (consisting of some episcopalians, baptists, and two Catholics) every Wednesday. It is led by one member of the clergy at the church. He repeatedly states that they can all thank [my] the Catholic Church for giving us the Bible and preserving it for us. I always wonder how he can believe that, teach that AND still believe in the episcopal church because, just as you went on to say, “if we trust the Catholic Church to determine its canon, perhaps we should also trust it to interpret it for us.” Makes perfect sense to me.

BTW, I pray for his conversion every day. Perhaps you can add him to your prayer list, too?

People have no difficulty believing that the Iliad (for example) is a historically-based account of bronze-age warfare, in spite of the absence of historical corroboration. (We can deal with the gods and godesses separately — that’s actually pretty easy to do.) People have no difficulty believing the accounts of Thucydides, or Julius Caesar, or any of dozens of other ancient documents, however thin or nonexistent the contemporary corroboration.

The Bible — all of the books of it individually and all of them collectively — is a unique document. There is nothing like it in any of history, even taken apart from the God who is the central figure and who inspired it. That alone makes it something you can believe in. And if you believe the story, you will believe in God. If you read the story the right way, illuminated by tradition and authentic teaching, you will be Catholic. Period. We are hearing more and more conversion stories, of atheists, agnostics, pagans, and non-Catholic believers who read the book and did not harden their hearts.

The only reason skeptics question it is because the Bible deals with God and his people and the plan God has for our salvation. Some of them, perhaps, simply don’t believe that God could do what God does (which is a pretty shallow way of denying His existence). And if those skeptics were willing to use reason they would no longer be skeptics.

As far as establishing the authority of the bible how do you know the Catholic church was the one who decided what books would be included in the bible? Why do you think Peter was the first pope? You accept these things because of something that was written in a book and passed down. This seems to me to be circular reasoning.

You are choosing to validate the authority of the bible by using another writing. What validates that historical account that it is true thereby validating the authority of the bible. This begins an endless cycle of rationalization.

I understand your point about proving one scripture does not prove the next and I think that is a very insightful thought, but I believe your initial argument cannot be used. This is why I say the best evidence is the witness of the Holy Spirit and the enduring truthfulness of the scriptures.

First, as noted in the post, there is a big difference between something being “true and real” and something being the “Inspired, Word of God Himself.”

Second, just because parts of this compilation of books may seem to be “true and real” how can you be sure that the other books and writings that have been historically included in the canon of the Bible are also true? Just because one paragraph prophecies something that comes to pass does not mean that the next paragraph (much less some other book of the Bible) can be trusted when it says that God became a man and died for your sins.

I don’t see how that kind of reasoning suffices for accepting the totality of scripture (or any bit of it actually) as the Inspired, Word of God. The only way is if you have something with authority (either God or something with God-given authority) reveal this Truth to us. And that’s exactly what the Catholic Church does.

Other than that, the Jewish people are a pretty big indication that the Bible is true. Look at all the prophecies that have come true already, and the ones that are still coming true!

As far as I know, EVERYTHING that the Bible has prophesied about Jesus and about the Jews and about the state of the world has already happened, is happening – or hasn’t happened yet (we’ll see if it does) but so far, the Bible has a pretty good track record =>

In fact, we can know God to a degree with certainty from reason alone. God made us to reason and discover real, objective truths. But he also gave us divine revelation through the apostles, handed down and protected by His Church. He didn’t leave us here to endlessly debate questions without any way to come to a conclusion with certainty. He said to take it to the Church (Mat 18:17).

I invite you to explore with an open mind just even the possibility that the Catholic Church is that Church. If you want to learn what the Church TRULY teaches on something, read the Catholic catechism. I think you would be surprised at what it says.

Also, http://www.Catholic.com is a great resource for particular questions you may have. Just go to their “Library.”

And if one can’t get that straight, then I don’t see any way they can have a sound understanding of the universal magisterium of the Church, authentic teachings, infallible teachings, etc.

Tim, I’m sorry for so many Catholics that don’t know their faith. It’s hard to place any blame at all on non-Catholics for not knowing what the Church teaches when so many Catholics are out there misinforming you of what the Church teaches. And I have no doubt that Catholics like Kimi are most often very sincere. They are just really missing the boat.

So many Catholics lean on such statements like “ultimately it is each individual’s responsibility for moral discernment.” Well of course it is. But there is a premise to that teaching that has been left out for decades. Yes, we must follow our own conscience. But the prerequisite for that is that we have formed our conscience PROPERLY. And a properly formed conscience is not a relative, subjective thing. It means we’ve formed our conscience in accordance with the objective Truths revealed in our Catholic faith through the Church.