What is the evidence that the church's teachings are backed by God?

You are arguing, obviously, *against * the early Christians having been backwards people. But one could make the same argument in favor of Islam, yes? Yet, for a Christian, that a religion such as Islam has survived for 13 plus centuries thus far, and has accrued over a billion adherents , doesn’t prove anything.


There’s a difference and I think you know where I might be headed. I will not state it though, for fear of reprisal. Nevertheless, it is a HUGE distinction. :wink:

God bless,

God bless you too, JD :slight_smile: You’re the first person on this forum that has offered a “God bless.” It is a charitable salutation.

Of course you may, but you may need to expand upon that idea a bit for most of us.

Thank you for asking.

Sorry, I misunderstood post 1. I saw a confusion of roles. I have no further comments.

[quote=JDaniel]Not so. The Bible, including the New Testament, was compiled by Christendom.

Well, next time someone asserts that the bible was compiled by the church - which is a FACT (and not a slur) - I hope you will raise your voice against your fellow brethren. (But I do not hold my breath).

[quote=JDaniel]When a person knows nothing about brain surgery, that person should not be conducting a seminar on it. You know very little about the Church and being Churched. Your arguments are, I am sure, straight from an atheist website.

Yes, you are “SURE”. Well, you are wrong. I have no need for atheist websites. What I learned about the church, I learned from you and you fellow posters. And don’t get confused about the apparently short time of this avatar. I have been reading and sometimes (rarely) participating on this forum for well over a decade. :slight_smile: Your knee-jerk reaction is so predictable. If one disagrees with your view, then one must be ill-informed and/or hostile. Never mind that I know probably more about the catechism than the majority of the catholics, I read quite a few of the blogs and books of apologists. Mene, tekel, ufarsin!! Their “arguments” are ridiculous nonsense. But you are “SURE” that I get my information from some atheist website. Well, rest happily and peacefully in your ignorance. Bye.

That Catholic Church was blessed by signs and first class miracles throughout history. If you considered the evidence with an open mind you would see. Even unbelievers who witnessed these things converted QED.

I would put it the other way around - the Church’s teachings come from God - Apostolic Tradition, the Deposit of Faith, etc - and grew over the centuries from the Apostles down!

Of course you would! You might do a little research and study…

*Perfect answer!

Do you realise that to a mind blocked by relativism this would make no sense. We live in a world that is being radicalised by secularists who are trying to redefine society, redefine religion - separate religion and worship - redefine human rights, redefine marriage, and so on and so forth!!! Soon they will re-write the Dictionary!! This is Utilitarianism and it is frightening. I read the other day that the United Nations wants to criminalise pro-life!! Did I really or did I dream this??

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: *

Praise God!

There is actually another human being who understands (at least I think you do) why I asked: "May I respectfully suggest that this question [What is the evidence that the church’s teachings are backed by God?] is backwards?

God existed before the human protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. The Catholic teachings come directly from Divine Revelation and not the reverse implied by the need? for backing by God.

In my humble opinion, the OP question implies that humans are, in a sense, equal to God. It implies that God evaluates what humans say and then chooses which “sayings” He will somehow back. This hints to the popular idea that it is time to update certain Catholic doctrines because maybe God did not originally “back” these certain doctrines.

To those who supplied Scripture Quotes

Your presentation of Scripture is evidence of God’s Divine Revelation. Thank you sincerely.

It is Chapter 14, Gospel of John which guarantees that the Catholic Church is perfectly able to back God’s Divine Revelation. This is why those who wish to change certain Catholic doctrines are having a difficult time. We back God. Not the reverse.

*Please define “Agnostic theist” Portofino.

God bless you

*You have been on these forums for over a decade and have only posted 47 times? No wonder you have advanced very slowly…

God bless you

So what? One thing is compiling independent evidence to show what I am stating and the other is making up things to support my statements. The first is the intelligent and ethical way of documenting something, the second is writing false documents. This is the normal approach used by historians. The gospels pass the standard tests used for historic documents.

:confused: Join date September 9, 2012. :confused:

By way of illustration – and definition – I offer the following four citations:

First quote:

"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: 'Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD Ἄγνωστος Θεός - agnostos theos]. "

Second quote:

“There is an indefinable mysterious power that pervades everything, I feel it though I do not see it. It is this unseen power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses” (Gandhi)

Third quote:

“We’re part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while” (George Carlin)

Fourth Quote:

“The world into which we are born is brutal and cruel, and at the same time of divine beauty. Which element we think outweighs the other, whether meaninglessness or meaning, is a matter of temperament. If meaninglessness were absolutely preponderant, the meaningfulness of life would vanish to an increasing degree with each step in our development. But that is or seems to me not the case. Probably as in all metaphysical questions, both are true; life is or has meaning and meaninglessness. I cherish the anxious hope that meaning will be preponderate and win the battle” (Carl Jung)

They do NOT pass any test. There is not one contemproary document from that era to substantiate what they describe. Besides, none of them has been written within about 40 years from the events they “describe”. It is simple mythology.

The solution is simple, but you will have to use you reason. “Faith or revelation” do not help here (either :))

You can choose to be ignorant of history and historical analysis of documents, that is your prerogative.

My reasoning is simple, probably someone is either lying or unable or unwilling to provide evidence.

Gary Habermas has compiled a list of 39 documents that do precisely what you claim is missing including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud.


You forgot to mention that no document from the era would pass your stringent test, that is just the nature of the documents written in that era. No other surviving document from the time comes close to being within 40 years of the event it describes. The New Testament has far better textual support than do the works of Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, or Tacitus, extent works by or about each of these can only be dated to within 900-1300 years of alleged authorship. To have extent writings within 40 years of authorship is an incredible accomplishment for the time. I don’t see you claiming that Plato or Aristotle are myths and completely unacceptable because the only copies we have from them are from about 1000 years after they lived.

Let’s be consistent here.

As a guest, which in no way confirms your claim. In fact, you are expecting faith from us about a revelation from you that you claim to be true, but for which no confirming evidence exists… Hmmm. Sounds ironically similar to your quandary with the New Testament. Your faith, surely, is that if we are gullible enough to accept the New Testament we must be entirely capable of trusting your unconfirmable claim.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.