Why Christianity Rather Than Another Religion?

Short Answer

Christianity should be believed rather than another religion if Christianity is true. Religion is not ultimately a matter of choosing the tradition that feels most attractive, resembles one's culture, or provides the most comforting spirituality. Different religions make incompatible claims about God, man, salvation, Jesus Christ, life after death, and divine revelation. Contradictory propositions cannot all be true in the same sense.

The Catholic Church has never taught that a person must accept Christianity through an irrational leap. The First Vatican Council taught that God has accompanied revelation with objective “motives of credibility”—especially miracles and prophecy—by which the divine origin of revelation can be recognised. Pope Pius XII likewise taught that God has provided external signs sufficient to establish with certitude, through reason, the divine origin of the Christian religion. Faith itself is supernatural and rests ultimately upon the authority of God revealing; but the judgment that God has in fact revealed is not supposed to be blind or arbitrary.

Christianity's decisive claim is Jesus Christ. He did not merely offer another ethical philosophy. Christianity proclaims that the eternal Son of God entered human history, taught with divine authority, performed miracles, was crucified, truly died, rose again, commissioned His Apostles, and founded a Church.

St Paul makes the Christian position extraordinarily clear:

“if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

Christianity therefore places its credibility upon events alleged to have occurred in history, above all the Resurrection.

Other religions may contain moral truths, philosophical insights, or remnants of truths knowable by natural reason. That does not make all religions equally revealed by God. If Christ truly rose from the dead and thereby vindicated His divine mission, then religious systems which contradict what He revealed cannot simultaneously be alternative revelations from the same God.

The next question is then not merely “Which religion?” but “What Church did Christ establish, and where is that Church?”

Why This Question Matters

If religion concerned only personal taste, the question would have little importance. One person might prefer Christianity, another Buddhism, another Islam, and another no religion at all, much as people prefer different music or cuisines.

But the great religions do not present themselves merely as interchangeable spiritual lifestyles. They make claims about reality.

• Does one personal God exist?

• Is the universe created or divine?

• Does man live once, or undergo repeated reincarnations?

• Is Jesus Christ God incarnate, merely a prophet, or neither?

• Was He crucified?

• Did He rise bodily from the dead?

• Is salvation accomplished through Christ, or is some fundamentally different path required?

These propositions cannot all be simultaneously true. Christianity itself allows no interpretation in which Christ is simply one spiritual teacher among many.

He says:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”
— John 14:6

And St Peter declares concerning Jesus Christ:

“Neither is there salvation in any other.”
— Acts 4:12

These are objective claims. Either Christ is what Christianity says He is, or Christianity is fundamentally mistaken.

This does not mean that we can judge the personal culpability or eternal destiny of every individual raised outside Christianity. God alone perfectly knows each person's knowledge, opportunities, intentions and response to grace.

The present question is different: which religious claims are objectively true?

A sincere error remains an error. Sincerity may affect a person's culpability; it cannot make contradictory propositions simultaneously true.

What the Catholic Church Teaches

Reason Can Know That One True God Exists

Christian apologetics does not properly begin by assuming Christianity. It begins with reality itself.

The First Vatican Council taught in the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius that the one true God, Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from created things by the natural light of human reason. God is not part of the universe, not merely a cosmic force, and not one deity among many. He is the Creator upon whom all created reality depends.

This already provides a way of assessing religious claims. A system which says that there is no Creator, that ultimate reality is impersonal when reason establishes a personal intelligent cause, that the universe itself is God, or that there are many independent ultimate gods cannot simply be regarded as another equally true description of the same reality.

There may be elements of truth within such traditions. But mutually incompatible accounts of ultimate reality cannot all be complete divine revelation.

Faith Is Not a Blind Leap

Catholic theology distinguishes two questions:

• Is it reasonable to recognise a particular message as having come from God?

• Why does the believer assent to what God has revealed?

The first concerns the motives of credibility. The second concerns the motive of faith.

The motive of supernatural faith is God's own authority: God can neither deceive nor be deceived. Yet before a person believes the mysteries revealed by God, there can be rational evidence that revelation has actually occurred.

Vatican I therefore taught that God joined revelation to external signs, especially miracles and prophecies, describing them as “most certain signs of divine revelation” suited to human understanding. The Council explicitly rejected the proposition that miracles cannot be certainly known or that the divine origin of Christianity cannot properly be proved through them.

Pope Pius XII reaffirmed precisely this traditional apologetic principle in Humani Generis, observing that God has supplied “many wonderful external signs” sufficient to establish with certitude the divine origin of Christianity.

Christian faith, therefore, is neither mathematical deduction nor irrational credulity. Grace produces the supernatural act of faith, while reason can recognise that believing God's revelation is credible and reasonable.

Scripture Need Not Initially Be Assumed to Be Inspired

An obvious objection arises: “Are Christians simply using the Bible to prove the Bible?”

That is not the classical Catholic method. Pope Leo XIII explained in Providentissimus Deus that, in apologetics, the sacred records can first be vindicated “at least as human documents.” From these early historical witnesses one can investigate Christ's identity, mission and the institution of His Church before appealing to biblical inspiration as a theological conclusion.

In other words, the investigator need not begin:“The Bible is inspired; therefore everything in it must be true.”

He may begin more modestly:

• “What are these ancient documents?

• When were they written?

• What do they tell us the earliest Christians were claiming?

• Are their central claims credible?”

Only subsequently does the question of inspiration arise.

Jesus Christ Claims an Exclusive Divine Mission

Christianity cannot coherently be reduced to the proposition that Jesus was merely one admirable religious teacher among many. The New Testament presents Him as the promised Messiah, the Son sent by the Father, the Judge of mankind, the giver of eternal life, and the unique means by which man comes to the Father.

The Catholic question therefore becomes:

What reason is there to believe these extraordinary claims?

The answer centres upon the signs accompanying Christ's mission, particularly His Resurrection.

The Resurrection Is Central to Christianity

The Resurrection is not an optional addition to Christian belief. St Paul states:

“If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:14

The Roman Catechism, promulgated following the Council of Trent, accordingly treats Christ's Resurrection not only as an article of faith but as a supreme confirmation of His divine identity and mission. Christ's rising by His own power manifests what no mere human teacher could claim by natural power.

Christianity therefore allows itself to be tested at its centre.

• If Christ did not rise, Christianity is false.

• If He truly rose from the dead as He had foretold, the religious landscape changes completely.

Historical and Theological Evidence

Christianity Begins With a Public Claim About Jesus Christ

One of the earliest surviving Christian writings is St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, generally recognised even by critical scholarship as genuinely Pauline and usually dated to approximately the middle of the first century. It therefore places us very close to Christianity's beginnings, not centuries later.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul reminds his readers of a tradition that he himself had already “received” and previously delivered to them:

• Christ died;

• He was buried;

• He rose again on the third day;

• He appeared to Cephas;

• then to the Apostles;

• then to more than five hundred brethren;

• then to James;

• then to the Apostles collectively;

• and finally to Paul himself.

Whatever conclusion someone ultimately reaches about these claims, one historical fact is difficult to escape:

the Resurrection was not a doctrine invented centuries after Jesus. It belongs to the earliest layer of Christian proclamation that survives.

Paul does not present it as a purely mystical experience or timeless religious symbol. He names witnesses and refers to people whom he says had seen the risen Christ.

The question facing the investigator is therefore not primarily, “Could later medieval Christians have invented resurrection stories?” It is:

Why did the earliest Christian movement proclaim that the recently crucified Jesus had risen from the dead?

The Resurrection Is the Hinge of the Argument

The Catholic case does not rest simply upon the statement, “The Bible says Jesus rose, therefore He rose.” It is cumulative.

• Christ's teaching,

• His fulfilment of prophecy,

• His miracles,

• His conduct,

• His claims,

• the testimony concerning His death and Resurrection,

• the transformation of His disciples,

• the rapid establishment of the Christian Church,

• and the subsequent endurance of that Church form parts of a larger case.

St Thomas Aquinas explained this classical approach in Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, chapter 6. He argued that truths exceeding natural human reason were fittingly confirmed by visible divine works surpassing natural power. He also appealed to prophecy and to Christianity's extraordinary propagation despite persecution and without the ordinary worldly inducements by which human movements often gain followers.

This is important. Catholic apologetics does not say:

“An unusual event occurred; therefore Christianity is true.”

Rather:

A messenger claiming divine authority must possess credentials proportioned to that claim.

If someone claims merely to be a philosopher, philosophical argument may suffice. If someone claims that Almighty God has commissioned him to reveal supernatural truth to mankind, it is reasonable to ask for divine confirmation. The miracles of Christ, culminating in His Resurrection, are presented precisely as such confirmation.

Miracles Are Signs, Not Religious Entertainment

A miracle in Catholic theology is not merely an event that someone finds astonishing. Nor is every report of healing, vision, apparition, prophecy or extraordinary experience automatically divine.

True miracles function as signs because their supernatural character authenticates a message or messenger in circumstances in which deception by God would be impossible. This also explains why one cannot simply count miracle stories among religions and declare a draw.

The relevant questions include:

• What precisely is alleged to have occurred?

• What evidence exists?

• How close is the testimony to the alleged event?

• Is the occurrence genuinely beyond created natural power?

• What doctrine is the sign purportedly authenticating?

• Does that doctrine contradict truths already certainly revealed by God?

God cannot authenticate contradictory revelations. Miracles and prophecy therefore belong within a broader rational and doctrinal judgment.

The Church Herself Is Part of the Evidence

Vatican I goes further. It teaches that the Church founded by Christ is herself a continuing “great and perpetual motive of credibility.”

The Council points to her extraordinary propagation, holiness, fruitfulness, Catholic unity and stability through history as public signs of her divine mission. This does not mean that every individual churchman is holy, or that Christians have never sinned gravely. The Church has never taught such a thing.

Rather, the argument concerns the continued existence and supernatural fruitfulness of an institution claiming to have been founded by Christ, despite persecutions, internal crises, political upheavals, heresies and the rise and fall of empires. Christianity therefore presents not merely an ancient miracle claim but a continuing historical phenomenon.

And here the inquiry begins naturally to move from:

• “Is Christianity revealed by God?” to:

• “Which visible Church possesses the marks and authority Christ gave to His Church?”

Pope Leo XIII insisted in Satis Cognitum that Christ did not establish an indefinite collection of mutually contradictory denominations, but one Church continuing His mission through history. That is a subsequent stage of the apologetic argument, but an unavoidable one.

How Christianity Compares With Other Religions

A complete comparative study of world religions would require volumes. It is nevertheless possible to identify the principal logical issue.

Christianity need not prove that everything contained in another religion is false. It needs to establish that God has revealed Himself definitively through Christ. Once that is established, anything in another religious system compatible with Christ may be true; anything genuinely contradictory to Christ's revelation cannot be another revelation from the same God.

Judaism

Christianity does not begin by rejecting the God, prophets or revelation of the Old Testament. It claims their fulfilment.

The decisive disagreement between Christianity and post-Christian Judaism therefore concerns Jesus Christ.

• Is Jesus the promised Messiah?

• Is He truly the divine Son?

• Was He rejected and crucified?

• Did He rise from the dead?

Christianity answers yes.

Consequently, the Resurrection again becomes decisive. If Jesus remained dead, the Christian interpretation of Israel's hope collapses. If He rose as He foretold, His claims demand assent.

The Christian argument is therefore not:

“Judaism was entirely false and Christianity replaced it.”

Rather, Christianity claims that God's authentic Old Testament revelation was preparatory and reached its fulfilment in Jesus Christ.

Islam

Islam presents a particularly clear comparison because the Qur'an makes specific claims about Jesus while rejecting central Christian doctrines. The Qur'an calls Jesus the Messiah and a messenger, yet Qur'an 4:157 denies that His enemies successfully killed and crucified Him, while 4:171 rejects Christian belief concerning God's Son and the Trinity. These texts establish the relevant Islamic position without relying upon Christian descriptions of Islam.

The conflict is direct. The earliest surviving Christian sources proclaim Christ's death, burial and Resurrection. Islam arose approximately six centuries later and presents a contrary account concerning the Crucifixion and Christ's identity. The Qur'anic material belongs to Muhammad's seventh-century proclamation, whereas Paul's testimony belongs to the first-century Christian movement.

The mere fact that one source is earlier does not automatically make it true. But a later claimant who says an earlier divine revelation has been misunderstood or corrupted bears a significant evidential burden—especially when the disputed doctrine can already be found in documents from the earliest Christian generation.

The Catholic argument therefore asks:

What comparable divine credentials justify overturning the prior revelation authenticated through Christ?

St Thomas Aquinas employed substantially this criterion when comparing Christianity with the later claims of Muhammad: an alleged supernatural revelation must possess divine confirmation proportionate to its claim. His polemical historical remarks should be distinguished from the underlying theological principle, which remains the important point.

Thus Christianity and Islam cannot simply be described as two equally valid paths affirming the same revelation in different cultural forms. They make contradictory claims about the central person of Christianity.

Polytheistic, Pantheistic and Non-Theistic Systems

The religions commonly grouped under labels such as Hinduism, Buddhism or traditional religions contain considerable internal diversity, so it would be inaccurate to treat them as though each taught one uniform creed. The proper method is instead to compare individual propositions.

If reason establishes one transcendent Creator distinct from the created universe, then genuine polytheism—in which several independent ultimate gods exist—cannot be correct.

• If God is really distinct from creation, strict pantheism cannot be correct.

• If God has personally revealed Himself in Christ, a system holding that no such personal Creator or revelation exists cannot be complete.

None of this requires denying that non-Christian philosophies may contain significant natural truths about morality, self-discipline, contemplation, human suffering or the transience of earthly goods.

Catholicism does not need to claim that every statement uttered outside the Church is false. The issue is divine authority. A collection of true moral observations is not thereby supernatural revelation.

Christianity Is Not True Because It “Feels Better”

This distinction is essential. One should not become Christian merely because Christianity has magnificent cathedrals, inspiring music, admirable saints, a compelling moral code, or a culture one happens to love. Those things may have evidential or secondary importance.

But the fundamental reason to become Christian is much more demanding:

because Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be.

If Christ is God incarnate and truly rose from the dead, personal preference becomes secondary.

• One does not ask whether one happens to prefer the truth.

• One asks what follows from it.

Common Objections

“Aren't All Religions Different Paths to the Same God?”

This idea sounds peaceful, but logically it does not work.

• Suppose one religion says: God is personal.

• Another says: ultimate reality is impersonal.

• One says: we live one earthly life.

• Another says: we undergo repeated reincarnations.

• One says: Jesus is God incarnate.

• Another says: it is blasphemous to call Jesus God.

• One says: Jesus was crucified and rose.

• Another says: Jesus was not crucified.

These cannot all describe the same reality correctly in the same sense.

Pope Pius XI explicitly rejected the theory that religions should be regarded as “more or less good and praiseworthy” manifestations of mankind's common religious impulse. Such a view, he explained, confuses subjective religious aspiration with objective revealed religion.

Different religions may possess different portions of truth. That is not the same as saying that God authored their contradictions. If God is Truth, He cannot reveal both a proposition and its contradictory.

“But Everyone Thinks Their Own Religion Is True”

Many people do inherit religion from their families and cultures. That observation tells us something about human sociology. It tells us nothing by itself about which religion is true.

People also inherit political beliefs, philosophical assumptions and opinions about history. The fact that beliefs are socially transmitted does not prove that no belief corresponds to reality.

The proper response is not:

“Everyone is biased, so truth cannot be known.”

It is:

“Because human beings can be biased, what evidence distinguishes one claim from another?”

Catholic apologetics therefore appeals to natural reason, historical testimony, miracles, prophecy and the identifiable historical mission of Christ rather than merely to upbringing or subjective experience.

“Isn't Using the New Testament Circular?”

It would be circular to argue:

• Scripture is inspired because Scripture says it is inspired.

• Everything Scripture says must therefore be true.

• Therefore Christianity is true.

But that is not the classical Catholic apologetic method. Leo XIII specifically says that Scripture may initially be treated as human historical documentation. An unbeliever does not have to begin by accepting Paul's inspiration in order to notice that First Corinthians is an early Christian document.

One can first ask:

• Did Paul exist?

• Did he actually write this letter?

• When?

• What did he and the communities receiving it already believe?

• What events did they claim had occurred?

• How early are those claims?

Only after investigating Christianity's historical credentials does the argument proceed to revelation, the Church and inspiration. That is not circular reasoning. It is ordinary historical reasoning followed by theological reasoning.

“Don't Other Religions Also Report Miracles?”

Yes. Reports of extraordinary events exist in many religious and cultural settings. Catholic apologetics does not teach that every miracle report is genuine. Nor does it reason:

“Christianity reports miracles; therefore Christianity must be true.”

The case depends upon the quality, context and purpose of the evidence. Vatican I's teaching that miracles can serve as certain signs of revelation presupposes that the event in question is actually established as miraculous.

Claims may therefore be investigated rather than automatically believed. Furthermore, a purported miracle cannot make contradictions true. If a religious claim plainly contradicts a revelation already established as divine, an extraordinary occurrence associated with the later claim cannot authorize God to contradict Himself. The proper argument is cumulative: doctrine, prophecy, miracles, historical testimony and the enduring marks of Christ's Church belong together.

“Isn't Faith Believing Without Evidence?”

Not according to Catholic theology. Faith concerns truths that exceed what unaided reason could discover or demonstrate by itself—for example, the inner mystery of the Trinity.

But it does not follow that there can be no rational evidence that God has revealed those truths.

Consider the distinction. Reason may not be able to discover the Trinity by studying nature. But if God establishes by unmistakable signs that He has spoken, reason can conclude that His testimony deserves belief.

The Christian then believes the mystery because God reveals it, not because he has philosophically demonstrated the mystery itself. This is precisely why Catholic theology distinguishes the mysteries of faith from the motives of credibility.

“Couldn't the Resurrection Have Developed as a Legend?”

Legendary development is a serious hypothesis and deserves a serious answer. The difficulty is that the Resurrection proclamation appears extremely early.

First Corinthians is not a medieval Christian chronicle. It is a first-century letter from Paul to an already established Christian community, and in it Paul reminds his audience of Resurrection teaching he had previously delivered and himself received. This does not by itself settle every historical question. But it greatly restricts the theory that belief in Christ's Resurrection arose only after generations of anonymous legendary development.

Whatever produced Christian Resurrection faith must be sought at the very beginning of the movement. And Paul himself understood the stakes: remove the Resurrection, and Christian faith is vain.

What We Can and Cannot Conclude

Established Catholic doctrine:
There is one true God, Creator of all things, whose existence can be known by natural reason. God can reveal supernatural truth. Supernatural faith rests upon God's authority, but divine revelation may be rationally recognised through external signs such as miracles and prophecy. Jesus Christ is the unique Saviour; He truly died and rose from the dead; and He founded His Church. These propositions do not rest merely upon one theologian's opinion. They belong to Catholic revelation and authoritative magisterial teaching.

Authoritative Catholic apologetic principle:
The divine origin of Christianity is capable of rational confirmation. Miracles and prophecies are legitimate motives of credibility, and the Church's historical propagation, holiness, unity and stability constitute continuing evidence of her divine mission.

Certain logical conclusion:
Two genuinely contradictory religious propositions cannot both be true in the same respect. Consequently, “all religions are equally true” cannot solve contradictions concerning the existence and nature of God, Christ's identity, His Crucifixion, His Resurrection, or the means of salvation.

Strong historical conclusion:
Belief in Christ's death and Resurrection belongs to Christianity's earliest recoverable proclamation, rather than being a doctrine first introduced centuries later. First Corinthians provides particularly important evidence because it is an early, generally accepted Pauline letter and explicitly records the Resurrection tradition Paul says he had received and transmitted.

Apologetic conclusion:
The cumulative Christian case—Christ's person and teaching, prophecy, miracles, Resurrection, apostolic testimony and the historical existence and endurance of His Church—provides rational grounds for recognising Christianity as revealed religion. This is a reasoned conclusion of apologetics; it should not be confused with a separately defined dogma stating every historical premise of a particular apologetic demonstration.

What historical investigation alone does not do:
Historical scholarship can investigate documents, testimony, chronology, claims and alternative explanations. Supernatural faith, however, is not merely the final result of historical research. Catholic teaching holds that faith itself is a supernatural virtue produced with God's grace. Rational evidence removes the idea that faith is irrational; grace elevates the person to make the act of divine faith.

What this article has not yet established:
Showing that Christianity is divinely revealed does not by itself complete the Catholic apologetic argument. One must next ask whether Christ founded a visible Church, what characteristics He gave that Church, what authority He gave the Apostles and St Peter, and which body is historically and doctrinally identical with that Church.Those questions are not optional additions. They are the logical next stage.

What is not necessary to establish the argument:
The case for Christianity does not require disputed conspiracy theories, uncertain relics, sensational private revelations or unverifiable miracle stories. Nor does the argument depend upon treating every historical detail in every later apologetic work as unquestionable. Its central case rests upon much stronger foundations: Christ, the apostolic witness, the Resurrection, the objective motives of credibility and the Church He established.

Conclusion

Why Christianity rather than another religion? Because religions make truth claims, and truth is not determined by personal preference. Contradictory religions cannot all have been revealed by a God who cannot contradict Himself.

The Catholic approach begins with reason:

• one can know that God exists and distinguish the Creator from creation.

• It then asks whether God has acted in history and provided sufficient signs by which revelation can be recognised.

• The Church teaches that He has.

• The central evidence is Jesus Christ.

Christianity places extraordinary weight upon an extraordinary historical claim: Christ died and rose again. That claim appears at the beginning of Christianity, not merely at the end of a long legendary development. Christ's Resurrection stands within a broader body of evidence comprising prophecy, miracles, apostolic testimony and the enduring existence of the Church He founded.

• If Christ did not rise, Christianity collapses on its own terms.

• If He did rise, Christianity cannot reasonably be placed beside contradictory religions as merely one optional spiritual path among many.

The Resurrection vindicates the divine mission of Christ, and Christ's divine mission changes the question from “Which religion do I prefer?” to “What has God revealed, and what does He require me to believe and do?”

The sincere seeker should therefore investigate Christianity not merely as an interesting philosophy but as a claim about something God actually did in human history. And once the truth of Christianity is recognised, the inquiry naturally continues: Which Church did Jesus Christ establish?

Primary Sources

Sacred Scripture — Douay-Rheims Bible

• John 14:6 — Christ as “the way, and the truth, and the life.” Read John 14:6

• Acts 4:10–12 — salvation in Jesus Christ alone. Read Acts 4:10–12

• 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 — Christ's death, burial, Resurrection and appearances. Read 1 Corinthians 15:3–8

• 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17 — the indispensability of the Resurrection to Christian faith. Read 1 Corinthians 15:14–17

First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, 24 April 1870 — especially Chapters I–III and the Canons on Faith, particularly canons 3–4 concerning miracles, prophecy and the credibility of revelation. This is a primary magisterial source for the distinction between supernatural faith and rational motives of credibility.
Official Latin text — Holy See archive
English translation of Dei Filius

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 12 August 1950, §§2–4 — natural reason, obstacles to religious knowledge, revelation, and the external signs establishing the divine origin of Christianity.
Official English text — Holy See archive

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18 November 1893, especially §§3 and 17 — Christ's miracles, Scripture in apologetics, and the use of the sacred writings initially as trustworthy human historical records.
Official English text — Holy See archive

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 29 June 1896, especially §§4–13 — Christ's establishment of one visible Church, unity of faith, apostolic government and the Petrine office.
Official English text — Holy See archive

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 6 January 1928, especially §§1–3 — rejection of religious indifferentism and of the theory that contradictory religions are merely different but equally acceptable manifestations of man's search for God.
Official English text — Holy See archive

The Roman Catechism / Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Article V — the Resurrection of Christ and its significance as confirmation of His divine authority.
Historical scan of the Catechism of the Council of Trent
Searchable English text

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, chapter 6 — the rational credibility of supernatural revelation, miracles, prophecy and the propagation of Christianity.
Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, chapters 1–9

Qur'an 4:157 and 4:171 — cited solely as primary evidence for the Islamic position concerning the Crucifixion, Christ and the Trinity; these texts are not used as Catholic doctrinal authorities.
Qur'an 4:157 — Quranic Arabic Corpus, University of Leeds project
Qur'an 4:171 — Quranic Arabic Corpus, University of Leeds project

Further Reading

Joseph Clifford Fenton, We Stand with Christ: An Essay in Catholic Apologetics (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1943).
A substantial treatment of fundamental apologetics and the rational credentials of divine revelation. A reliable freely accessible complete scan was not independently verified during preparation of this article; the bibliographical record is available here:
Open Library — Joseph Clifford Fenton bibliography

Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., De Revelatione per Ecclesiam Catholicam Proposita, 5th ed. (Rome: Marietti, 1950).
A major Thomistic manual of fundamental theology treating revelation, credibility, miracles, prophecy and the Church's credentials. The original work is in Latin.
Open Library bibliographical record for De Revelatione

Charles F. Aiken, “Apologetics,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907).
A useful overview of the classical Catholic apologetic method. Significantly, it divides apologetics into the questions: why believe in religion at all, why Christianity rather than another claimed revelation, and why the Catholic Church rather than another Christian body. This is secondary theological reference material, not magisterial teaching.
Catholic Encyclopedia — Apologetics

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, chapters 3–9.
Although a primary theological work rather than a modern apologetics manual, these chapters remain especially useful for understanding the relationship between reason, truths above reason, revelation and its divine confirmation.
Read Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I

For historical orientation concerning the Pauline epistles, modern critical scholarship may also be consulted without treating it as an authority for Catholic doctrine. Standard scholarship continues to place the undisputed Pauline letters among the earliest surviving Christian writings.
Oxford Bibliographies — Pauline Letters

Related Questions

Proposed foundational articles in Part 0 — Is Christianity True?

Does God Exist?Can We Know What God Is Like?

If God Exists, Why Is There Evil and Suffering?

If God Exists, Why Does He Seem Hidden?

Has God Revealed Himself to Mankind?Did Jesus Christ Really Rise from the Dead?

Why Catholicism Rather Than Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy?

Existing True Catholic Faith articles1.1. What is the Catholic Church and why should I be a member of it?
Read the article on True Catholic Faith

8.51. Aren’t all religions just different paths to God, as long as we’re sincere and love others?
Read the article on True Catholic Faith

1.4. Don’t all Christian denominations make up the Church, and isn’t it just a matter of personal taste? Doesn’t God see our heart anyway?
Read the article on True Catholic Faith