L
LDNCatholic
Guest
Forgive me if this belongs in another area. Why were the other gospels not included in the Bible? Did ‘‘other’’ gospels even exist or are they a product of modern media?
- Status
N
NotWorthy
Guest
There were other Gospels, numerous ones at that. But they weren’t considered inspired by God. Their teachings would have been inconsistent with the Apostolic Church.
In the late 4th century, there were around 110 books being considered for the Canon of the NT.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Because they weren’t written by the apostles, suffice to say.
When the Apocalypse of Peter was written 200 years after St. Peter died, you tend to be a little suspicious.
When the Apocalypse of Peter was written 200 years after St. Peter died, you tend to be a little suspicious.
A
awalt
Guest
It was believed that there were actually several reasons why the scriptures included in the Canon were included, and those that were not, were not:
- Were they written/influenced by an Apostle?
- Is there evidence the scripture was used in liturgy (read aloud) by the early Church?
- Is there anything heretical or contrary to Church teaching in the writing?
- Is it consistent and error free?
D
donincoto
Guest
Our parish priest recently quoted from the “Gospel of Thomas”? Since when does the Church consider the gnostic gospels even Christian much less part of Scripture?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I wasn’t aware you could only quote from Scripture.
C.S. Lewis is often quoted, and he wasn’t even Catholic.
Not everything in the Gnostic Gospels is spurious, or they would have never been considered for the NT canon.
T
thistle
Guest
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Apostleship is not a pre-requisite otherwise we would not have either Mark or Luke. Matthew according to some is also questionable.Because they weren’t written by the apostles, suffice to say.
When the Apocalypse of Peter was written 200 years after St. Peter died, you tend to be a little suspicious.
In any event many of the extra canonical gospels and writings were well known to the ECF. Some of the texts were considered too Gnostic in orientation, such as Thomas. Hebrews very nearly did not get in, and there was excessive discussion I believe about revelation as well. We presume that the Church was properly guided in her choice of the canon.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Its also appropriate I believe to quote from Church fathers and they certainly arent scripture either. Thomas and others certainly talked about Jesus and obviously relied on some writings that were circulating at that time. No one suggests that they were rejected as scripture because they were in opposition throughout, but only in some particulars.
M
manualman
Guest
IIRC, the Gospel of Thomas was rejected for two reasons:
- Its claim to be authored or contributed to by the apostle Thomas was found to be unfounded.
- It teaches certain gnostic concepts, which could never happen in a truly inspired document.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I’ve not heard of anyone trying to use extra canonical writings to teach authoritively. That would clearly be wrong unless they were in agreement with official church teachings. However, that does not mean they are not in some respects useful for teaching. I would also dispute that they have an “agenda separate from that of the true gospel”. They may well have been found in error according the to predominant and chosen gospels, but that doesn’t mean they don’t accurately reflect a type of belief that had some widespread following during that important time. They are I would suggest critically important in understanding how Christianity spread and what forces apposed or partially supported it. Obviously that would only be the tip of the iceberg. That they are not considered on a level with the canon is understood I would assume by all.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I don’t mean to dispute you, this is a question. You say that Thomas was rejected in part because it could not be proved that Thomas either contributed or authored any of the text. ? Am I correct in that?
I wonder why that would be since Mark for instance was not written by an apostle and to this day we really are quite unsure who Mark was. We have but the barest evidence which is not well supported that he was a follower of Paul, but I don’t think that most scholars agree with this conclusion, the evidence being just that weak.
D
donincoto
Guest
NotWorthy -
Sorry let me try this again. I’m new at this and, I expect, you are far more informed than I am on the subject.
I am Catholic, and I attend Mass every Sunday. I also study the Bible and have weekly home Bible studies with my wife and children. I also have a copy a the Catechism of the Catholic Church and try to read it, understand it and reference it when I hear something that doesn’t seem right. With that said, I have a long way to go.
Our parish priest recently wrote - "The Gospel of Thomas records Jesus saying: “Blessed is the person who will stand at the beginning and will know the end.” His statement was part of a longer essay in the parish bulletin.
Several weeks before this, our deacon gave the homily. He said, “The Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong and should be forbidden.” (I know this is a different discussion, but I don’t believe his statement is entirely accurate.)
Last year (is that when we were reading the Gospel of Matthew), the pastor gave his homily on Matthew Chapter 20. He taught that the passage was about fair wages and workers’ rights. (I am not kidding.)
In my view, most Catholics in the pews on Sunday have never read the Bible, and most of them don’t have a clear understanding of what the Church teaches.
I guess my point was this - our congregation views our parish priest as the authority on Scripture and Church teaching. With that in mind, shouldn’t the priest use better judgment with the references he chooses, the teachings he claims as authoritative Church teaching and the spin he puts on the Gospel.
Thanks.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Mark followed Peter to Rome. He probably wrote this Gospel after listening to Peter’s sermons for numerous years. Peter’s humility may be why he’s not very prominent in Mark’s Gospel.
Also, on a side note, early Christian tradition held that Mark was the slave that ran away naked in the Garden of Gethsemane.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Don’t let my number of postings fool you. I can be quite the blithering idiot on many an occasion.
Jesus may have said this, mind you. And I think your parish priest was right in stipulating, “The Gospel of Thomas records…”. But actually, this may be an accurate statement of Jesus’. Not everything found in these Gnostic Gospels is false, or else it would have been thrown in the trash immediately. The fact that it held some early respect in the Church indicates that it was at least close to the truth.
Besides, it could have been worse - he could have said, “early Scriptures record…”
The Church upholds the death penalty only if it’s the only option, but in today’s society there are numerous other options. This therefore is not an entirely false statement although it could be better stated, IMO.
Our parish, btw, is encouraging our parishioners to fight to abolish the death penalty.
As you may know, Texas (sadly) is the king of executions. It’s a crown that we should wear in sadness, but most Texans are proud of this fact, even to the point of bragging.
Now, he’s stretching it. I could never see that as a “fair wage” practice.
Actually, I often use that parable as a reason not to have welfare instead.
“How do I come up with that rationale?” you may ask. Well, if the workers find out that they can get a full day’s pay only by working the last hour, when do you think those workers are going to show up for work the next day?
I agree that your priest’s homilies and bulletins should be “audited”. But I wouldn’t throw out a blanket statement that “no quotes from the Gospel of Thomas should be used”. If those quotes follow Catholic Tradition and help to clarify the my point, then I wouldn’t pass it up. Of course, I’d rather look at Scripture first.
I think your priest may have been showing off his knowledge.
Oh, Hey!!! BTW, I forgot to mention it, but Welcome to the Forums!!! You’ll find out that they are a lot of fun, and that I’m not such a bad guy afterall!!!
T
thistle
Guest
Its generally accepted that Mark was the disciple and interpreter of Peter (not Paul).
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
No I don’t think it is at all. That refers to Papias’s claims, which are lost but reported in Eusebius. Unfortunately Papias is not relying on his own personal knowledge but refers to an Elder who is unnamed and unknown who claims this to be the case. Papias’s remarks are quite universally regarded as apologetic. This assertion by Papias is highly suspect because obvious places in Mark where we would therefore expect much more detail about Peter simply are not there. Not only does Peter not play a pivotal role as one would expect if Mark was a disciple of Peter’s, Peter is more often treated poorly by Mark. The evidence is greater by far that Mark was disciple to Paul if anyone.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
There is no evidence that Mark followed Peter. The better evidence is that he traveled with Paul, although this is by no means clear but at least has attestation in the NT itself. I simply argue what the state of critical historical analysis is at now. Anyone is free to agree with whatever they wish to, no doubt.
yes I’m aware of the story about the naked person. It has long been believed that Mark wrote at Rome. This has been challenged recently by Joel Marcus, who believes that Mark may actually have been in the environs of Jerusalem and fled with his community to a further outlaying town during the lead up or during the Jewish War.
I agree that all these theories are near equal in their lack of certainty. Mostly we just don’t know.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Furthermore,many of these writings were full of gnostic heresies, especially the Gospel of Mary Magdelene and the Gospel of Thomas. They didn’t regard Jesus as the Redeemer in the sense that the Church understands it. Furthermore, many of the “secret” sayings of Jesus contradict what is found in the bona fide Gospels. Worse, one of the Gnostic Gospels claims that Jesus left hsi body on Good Friday and was standing at a distance from Calvary and “mocking” the crucifixion. I think this is the version found in the so-called Gospel of Peter.
Now, the most “Catholic” of these is actually the Infancy Narrative by James, as it seems to correlate Church teaching about the Blessed Virgin Mary (including the circumstances surrounding her birth and betorthal to St. Joseph). I read this particular writing and have often wondered why it wasn’t accepted into the Canon.
Nonetheless, because gnosticism is a heresy, writrings such as the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and the like were not accepted because they subscribed to that form of heresy. Just because these writings were old doesn’t necessarily make them legitimate. They are just old heresies regurgitating themselves every few centurires.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But we DO have something. Catholic tradition tells us that this is so.
Now, maybe we don’t know WHY they think this, but until we know better, it doesn’t make much sense to doubt this, does it?
- Status