Gnostic Gospels

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

We have one tradition that Papias was told by and elder than Mark was a follower of Peter. However, nearly everything in the Eusebius reportage is admittedly apologetic and thus not entitled to great weight as truth. There is some minimal biblical evidence that Mark was indeed the John Mark of Acts, who traveled at some point with Paul. There is a great deal more to the evidence and the bottom line is, this conclusion is nearly as weak as the other. The bottom line,…we just have really no idea who Mark was.

Why would we not doubt something nearly 2000 years old which is but double hearsay in the first place?

 

[NotWorthy]

We have one tradition that Papias was told by and elder than Mark was a follower of Peter. However, nearly everything in the Eusebius reportage is admittedly apologetic and thus not entitled to great weight as truth. There is some minimal biblical evidence that Mark was indeed the John Mark of Acts, who traveled at some point with Paul. There is a great deal more to the evidence and the bottom line is, this conclusion is nearly as weak as the other. The bottom line,…we just have really no idea who Mark was.

Why would we not doubt something nearly 2000 years old which is but double hearsay in the first place?

Considering that we have lost about 99.99% of the letters and documentation of the early Church, I think Catholic Tradition is WAY more solid than “just hearsay”.

In other words, since the only surviving documentation comes from an Apologetic work by Eusebius, that doesn’t mean this was the only proof to the early Church.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Either way, it doesn’t help us understand the Scriptures better, nor change the canonical status of the Gospel (thank God for the Magisterium!) So why spend time doubting and arguing over it? There are many other urgent matters to bother about until the Second Coming of Christ or our death, whichever is earlier.

Work hard to fight the good fight so as to win the crown of our calling: heaven. After that, we can ask all the trivia questions we want.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Considering that we have lost about 99.99% of the letters and documentation of the early Church, I think Catholic Tradition is WAY more solid than “just hearsay”.

**I’m sorry. Perhaps you do not understand the concept of hearsay. That is when you speak what someone else said. Here we have documented proof that the statement is double hearsay. Eusebius says that Papias says that some unknown elder says. Just because it involves a Church member it is entitled to no greater weight evidentially than any other document. The “tradition” as you state is too flimsy to be relied upon. **

In other words, since the only surviving documentation comes from an Apologetic work by Eusebius, that doesn’t mean this was the only proof to the early Church.

Well it might not be the only proof, but unfortunately it is the only “proof” we are aware of. Archeology may of course turn up something new tomorrow.

 

[turtleoompa]

I believe all that is included in the bible was written no later than year 90 while John was still alive.