Another days, more lies.
This is getting both pathetic and tiresome.
The straw man that the Catholic church considers the bible, "just another historical document" is both vulgar and ansurd.
On what basis does today's Catholic Church reject other documents? On the simple basis that they were rejected by those who knew of their origins! On the basis that they contradicted the doctrines of the early Church! The absurdity of the article is that it precisely pits "Tradition" and "Scripture" as opposed to each other; the early Christian Fathers passed down tradition because it was consistent with scripture, and saw scripture as consistent with those traditions that they had received. They knew the gnostic gospels to be false because they were alien. Asking the Church Fathers how they knew Thomas wasn't holy scripture would be like asking an American how they knew that the Communisit Manifesto wasn't a foundational American document!
>> Madrid and all Catholic apologists who use this type of argument are tacitly assuming from the get-go that they "know for sure" what books are trustworthy historical records, nay, even infallible historical records! <<
Not TACITLY assuming, but boldly proclaiming!
The fact that you are protesting so strongly serves as an encouragement.
I must be getting close to the truth here.