I think I'll have to disagree there, and pretty much leave it at that after adding a few thoughts here. I've pinged you metmom because I think my response to Daniel here will address what you said to me.
First of all, let me make things as clear as possible and here, I may not only surprise you but other Catholics. Again, I don't trust the Church just because the Church is historical, and or because She claims authority for herself. As I tried (and obviously failed) to explain before I place my trust in the Church because I have encountered Christ through her (members) and thus, based on this experience, I know I can trust Her in other areas. It matters not to me whether you think I "must" base my trust on Her claims of authority, that's simply not the truth. I don't know how else to say that.
Now, as for the portion in bold: I must have missed that point when you made it before so sorry. But I do not agree that's how the Church started, if what you are saying there is people went around with copies of (OT) Scripture and showed the truth of Jesus in them.
Certainly we read about the Bereans, and how St Paul showed them Christ in the Scriptures. But two points there: 1. St Paul showed them. He didn't give them a copy of the Torah and say, "Read it yourselves and you'll see Jesus there". He sat down with them, and through fellowship showed them Jesus in the OT. So there we have an example of the key component I described in my previous post: the human element. The human need for help (and to give help). It is in this context that the Church was founded and continues to operate. See point 2 for more.
2. Even if you are claiming that St Paul and others went around with copies of Scripture and used only that to "prove" Jesus and the Gospel, that line of reasoning only works for the Jewish converts. Only they would have responded to "...Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture being supreme as the assured word of God,". The Gentile converts would not.
I submit that the way the Church even began, much less continues today, was by the effective power of the witness. Sharing his testimony with others, a testimony based on personal experience, not on a Scriptural study. This testimony shared with those who are seeking for answers for whatever reason, not forced on others. And certainly doesn't begin with Scripture; again; it begins with a personal encounter with those who are not only willing to listen, but know they need something more in their life. Of course later, study of Scripture would be an important thing to do, but it's not how Christianity is spread not then not now. Because really, there's nothing more stupid than an answer to a question not asked. So to go to someone, Bible in hand and expect them to convert just by reading it to them, well that's just not anything really. And any "conversion" based on that alone is hardly a conversion that will last for long. Why? Because a man must be CONVINCED he needs Christ in his life, to be truly converted, and just reading the Bible, as an unbeliever with no help at all is not convincing.
This is the method that Christianity must have spread back then, so there's no reason to believe it has to change now. This is the method God the Holy Spirit uses. He uses us to spread His Word. He doesn't come to people (usually) in dreams or visions and suddenly "bam" another soul is saved. No, He uses US, chooses US to be His instrument on earth. So this really leads into my point from the beginning. That in our own human need, we can see the need for another, a helper, and not some ethereal, non-corporal spirit that we point to whenever challenged to prove God, to give a reason for our faith. We have a corporal God (Jesus) who meets us in our need by giving us a corporal, visible Church, a Church guided by the Comforter. Because that's what we need as human beings. We need something tangible (as I said before) to point to in our lives so we can say with confidence "I have MET Christ, come and see" to those who are not yet part of His Body.
We need that because that's all we are: human.
It does not say anywhere in Scripture that Paul sat down with the Bereans and guided them through their search of Scripture.
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
So that verse does not support your contention that Paul guided them in their search.
2. Even if you are claiming that St Paul and others went around with copies of Scripture and used only that to "prove" Jesus and the Gospel, that line of reasoning only works for the Jewish converts.
Who said anything about Paul carrying around or handing out copies of Scripture?
Additionally, what else are you going to use to prove that Jesus is the Messiah?
The only proof is the fulfilled Messianic prophecies and the only place to find them is in the OT. the whole purpose of the Law was to lead us to Christ, to show us our need for Him and to show us how to recognize Him instead of an imposter.
So what else would you think Paul would use to show that Jesus is the Messiah?
Testimonies have their place, as do miracles, but where does Scripture say faith comes from?
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.