[roamer_1]

The glaringly broad-brush nature of your statement aside[...]

I don't think it to be a broad brush at all - Look into the known insertions and forgeries, and it is easy to conclude the motive. That it is institutional in nature goes without saying too. I tried to give your traditional history a fair shake, I really did, spending a year or better proving and proofing your tradition and catechism, at a time when my motive was a pure quest for truth... Needless to say, I didn't find it there.

tell me: how I am supposed to be sure that any ancient text was actually penned by the author to which it is attributed, especially since the original manuscripts have all perished?

There are several means, but lets get right down to the Bible itself, eh? isn't that where you are going? 'If I don't believe your church, how can I believe the Bible?'... Isn't that the play?

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
The glaringly broad-brush nature of your statement aside[...]

[roamer_1]
I don't think it to be a broad brush at all -

Really? You wrote: "In the light of all the forgeries and insertions committed by the Roman church[...]", right? If you think that this isn't a general waving of hands and saying, "Everyone, behold all the forgeries and insertions committed by the Roman church[sic]!" (without so much as specifying the alleged forgeries and insertions, much less proving that the Catholic Church was somehow responsible--i.e. "committed" them), then I don't know what to tell you. That statement is simply dripping with anti-Catholic bias; it's very rich in insinuation, and virtually empty of content. If you'd like to be more credible, you'll need to be more specific, on all counts; general "smears" such as this statement make for amusing rhetorical theater, but they simply won't do, in a logical argument.

Look into the known insertions and forgeries, and it is easy to conclude the motive.

If one starts out by assuming that one's opponent is a demon, then yes... "concluding" a motive would be trivially easy. The conclusion would be invalid, of course... but very easily reached.

That it is institutional in nature goes without saying too.

Who's denying that? I, for one, don't find anything nefarious about institutions, per se. Do you?

I tried to give your traditional history a fair shake, I really did, spending a year or better proving and proofing your tradition and catechism, at a time when my motive was a pure quest for truth... Needless to say, I didn't find it there.

That's odd: I went through the same sort of thing in college (when I almost lost my Faith in God altogether), and I came to the exact opposite conclusion! So did Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, John Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, and countless other men who are far more brilliant than I.

There are several means, but lets get right down to the Bible itself, eh? isn't that where you are going?

It wasn't, actually; I was confining myself to the spurious claim that "perhaps all the writings attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch were forgeries"; not only has that no basis in fact, but it's a rather "convenient" sort of conclusion for anti-Catholic-Church people to reach... yes? I might just as easily dismiss all of Luther's writings as mere forgeries, written by a Catholic as a "stunt". 'If I don't believe your church, how can I believe the Bible?'... Isn't that the play?

Not at this point, no. I'd gently ask, though: how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 66 books in your Protestant Bible, and those ALONE (there's that troublesome word, again!), comprise the Sacred Scriptures?