Question about Mark and Luke

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mathematoons

New member
I saw on “What Catholics Really Believe” that Ignatius, a disciple of John the Evangelist (i.e. the guy who wrote the Gospel of John), said that not believng in the Real Presence was heresy, and that this proves the truth of the Real Presence, because he heard it directly from John.

A Protestant could say, “Well, you’re two degrees of separation from Jesus already, so that doesn’t work.” But Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Luke was a disciple of Paul (from what I’ve read). Both were two degrees of separation away from Jesus (since Paul learned the Gospel directly from Jesus). So a person cannot logically accept Mark and Luke as correct without accepting Ignatius, since they are equally far removed from Jesus.

Am I right, or is there a missing step in my thinking?
 
mathematoons said:
I saw on “What Catholics Really Believe” that Ignatius, a disciple of John the Evangelist (i.e. the guy who wrote the Gospel of John), said that not believng in the Real Presence was heresy, and that this proves the truth of the Real Presence, because he heard it directly from John.

A Protestant could say, “Well, you’re two degrees of separation from Jesus already, so that doesn’t work.” But Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Luke was a disciple of Paul (from what I’ve read). Both were two degrees of separation away from Jesus (since Paul learned the Gospel directly from Jesus). So a person cannot logically accept Mark and Luke as correct without accepting Ignatius, since they are equally far removed from Jesus.

Am I right, or is there a missing step in my thinking?
Click to expand...
Actually Paul was just called by Jesus; it was the Christians in Damascus and the Apostles who filled in the details. So that’s already three degrees of separation for Luke.
 
I would say that Luke was in contact with the apostles, especially Peter and Phillip as well as many other evangelists - Mark, Barnabas, Silas etc. and very possibly Mary which puts him only one step away from direct contact with the physical Jesus on multiple counts.

Seeing as how Ignatious became the leader of the Church at Antioch, he must have also been well connected with multiple eye witnesses of Jesus.

The Church at Antioch was one of the first centres of Christianity and he became leader of that Church in the same decade as Peter and Paul’s martyrdom.

It would make sense that he would be well connected (at the least) with people who had 1st hand eye witness accounts of the physical Jesus - to my way of thinking.
 
A Protestant’s rejection of Ignatius would be illogical only if we assume that the writings of all second-generation Christians are orthodox, which we know from the New Testament is not the case. The acceptance of Mark and Luke is not simply based on their low degree of separation from Jesus but also on their orthodoxy.
 
Todd_Easton said:
A Protestant’s rejection of Ignatius would be illogical only if we assume that the writings of all second-generation Christians are orthodox, which we know from the New Testament is not the case. The acceptance of Mark and Luke is not simply based on their low degree of separation from Jesus but also on their orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
OK, this is helpful. How was it decided how orthodox someone was, when the Gospels that defined orthodoxy were still being written?
 
mathematoons said:
OK, this is helpful. How was it decided how orthodox someone was, when the Gospels that defined orthodoxy were still being written?
Click to expand...
If Acts 15 is any indication, orthodoxy was determined by church councils, under the leadership of Peter and of his successors, the bishops of Rome…
 
mathematoons said:
I saw on “What Catholics Really Believe” that Ignatius, a disciple of John the Evangelist (i.e. the guy who wrote the Gospel of John), said that not believng in the Real Presence was heresy, and that this proves the truth of the Real Presence, because he heard it directly from John.

A Protestant could say, “Well, you’re two degrees of separation from Jesus already, so that doesn’t work.” But Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Luke was a disciple of Paul (from what I’ve read). Both were two degrees of separation away from Jesus (since Paul learned the Gospel directly from Jesus). So a person cannot logically accept Mark and Luke as correct without accepting Ignatius, since they are equally far removed from Jesus.

Am I right, or is there a missing step in my thinking?
Click to expand...
Ignatius is important for the fact that he shows us what the church at this time believed. He is not separated by centuries like the Protestant Reformation fathers were. The same St. John the Apostle, who penned the text of John 6 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, taught the faith to St. Ignatius. We don’t base our belief in the Eucharist on the teaching of St. Ignatius; he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. He does show us the consistency in the Church’s teaching regarding the Eucharist from the very beginning.
 
garysibio said:
Ignatius is important for the fact that he shows us what the church at this time believed. He is not separated by centuries like the Protestant Reformation fathers were. The same St. John the Apostle, who penned the text of John 6 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, taught the faith to St. Ignatius. We don’t base our belief in the Eucharist on the teaching of St. Ignatius; he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. He does show us the consistency in the Church’s teaching regarding the Eucharist from the very beginning.
Click to expand...
Why do you think St. Ignatius was not inspired by the Holy Spirit???

“I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God’s sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God’s wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.”— Letter to the Romans

That dude sounds like he was extremely inspired by the Paraclete…
 
simspt said:
Why do you think St. Ignatius was not inspired by the Holy Spirit???

“I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God’s sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God’s wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.”— Letter to the Romans

That dude sounds like he was extremely inspired by the Paraclete…
Click to expand...
Then why aren’t his works included in the canon of Scripture?
 
garysibio said:
Then why aren’t his works included in the canon of Scripture?
Click to expand...
Inspiration was not the primary criteria for inclusion/exclusion of a particular writing being canonized. All writings in the NT are inspired but it doensn’t necessarily follow that the early church regarded all others without inspiration. Most canon historians I have read point out that other criteria had a greater influence on the canon. Most likely the early church had a broader view of inspiration than we do today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top