Because it would take me too long to type it all out, even though it's a relatively simple process, check this out:
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
You see I agree with you in all that you have said here. But, what we have to ask is why. Why do you and I agree here? Because, though we are of different faiths, we are believers. What is considered sound logic by you and me, is not concisdered so by non-believers, skeptics or even some very liberal Christians. I mean the fact that the apostles who martyred themselves after Jesus' crucifixion further confirms for you and me who Jesus actually was, does not mean thats other simply do not consider them "madmen" just as Jesus may have been.
Examples: Jim Jones, Koresh, Moonie, Manson . . . . . . In no way do I compare them to Jesus, but people are taken in by "charismatic" men everyday.
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.
Well, eerrrrrrt!!! (
that's the sound of our agreement screeching to a halt 
) The papacy and hierarchy you claim are not present in the church we see established in Scripture.
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Oh my! You are one heck of a "leap frog" player . . . .
This is not true for at least two reasons. You and I as believers can have the above discussion (I of course would omit/change a couple of your assertions) and feel confident we have shown that Jesus founded "the church" and was all that He claimed to be. However, for others the best that we have done is reasoned how it is possible, even likely, that these things are true. For one thing, much of what is historical in the Bible has not been proven or substantiated as historical fact. You and I consider it so, but non-believers do not.
Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.
Claims that you can not substantiate without the self-proclaimed authority to interpret Scripture.
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible.
You mean the CC you assert is "evidentially" established in Scripture, only substantiated by the CC's assertion that Scripture says this is so by invoking its authority to interpret Scripture . . . . ?
Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
Self-constituted by invoking its
supposed authority which it claims is established in Scripture . . . . . only, Scripture never even hints at such authority.
I know sometimes I'm slow, but I've missed how your argument above addresses my statement more-less how it disproves my POV.
A Spiral Argument
Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
Okay, let me see if I'm getting this right. You take "historical" record and discern it as nothing more than a historical document and
conclude that an
infallible church has been instituted? Let me ask you something, have you ever known of history being infallible? Have you ever heard of "history" being proven wrong?
Am I getting it so far . . . . ?
And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] . . .
You know, I'm really trying not to laugh. You present this in all seriousness, exuding the air that you're the intellectual who is exercising logical reasoning, while we simple-minded fundamentals are chasing our tails in circles.
But, I digress, so you are arguing that we only know that Scripture is inspired because an
infallible church instituted in a fallible historical document says so?
This is not a circular argument because the final onclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.
How about this: God is God, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. How do we know? Because
He said so. Is that a circular argument?
Because the Bible is not merely one continuous text, but a compilation of several smaller texts, it is not circular to assert that it is self-authenticating. I've already presented this argument, and you have not addressed it or disproven it inspite of your convoluted rambling above.
That would be a simplistic argument. See my passage above.
Oh, well it's certainly simplistic in comparison to your "passage" above . . . . .
Um . . . . who's the person who said something about the Protestants need to use "many words" to make Scripture say what they want . . . . .
Agree and disagree. At some point, yes, faith is key to the whole argument, but not necessarily right at the begining. I disagree that very little can be proven from history or the Bible. Frankly, I'm astonished to see you write that. I think a great deal can be proven with it.
It's a fact for those who don't believe. If it wasn't everybody would be believers.
