LOL, nearly unable to stop, actually.
So, we have here a protestant arguing the case that those who were closer to the life of Jesus would know better than those separated by many years.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You have just made the case for the Church regarding the writings of the early fathers. The case for the fact that those fathers knew an Apostle and studied and because Christian with an Apostle.
And you have just made the case for Apostolic succession and why it is important to trace the lineage back through the generations.
You have also made my case that protestants do not read or consider what is written to them, it is all knew jerk reaction of readied pat responses.
Why do I say this?
I Never said anything about discounting the reliability and authority of the Bible. I said the Bible does not say within itself who those authors are and that by accepting who the early church claims they are, one is relying on Tradition.
That God exists and the Bible is His word, is a matter of faith and without that faith, one reading the Bible is lost.
So, my statement is true.
We accept the Bible on faith and tradition.
So glad to know I brought a smile to your face this day. Let me remind you that my comments were directed at your seeming rejection of the author of the Gospel of Mark. You stated:
We don’t know for certain that this same Mark is the one who wrote the gospel bearing his name.
So what I demonstrated was that there is no need to doubt the author was indeed the very same Mark that was the interpreter and disciple of Peter. I'm delighted you don't really question this fact, but I think you can understand why what you said might cause others to doubt you.
What you have written regarding any familial relationship between Peter and Mark is not from the NT, but early church writers. And among them there is some disagreement about Mark, the companion of Peter and Mark the Evangelist who wrote the gospel.
So what that there may be some disagreement? What matters is we do most certainly have the writings of early believers (i.e.; Irenaeus) that attest to the authenticity of the writing. As the author of the article I linked stated, there would have to have been a reliable and authenticated backdrop for the writing to be accepted by the early church.
Either way, I said in my post this all assumes that the authors of the those gospels are indeed who it is claimed they are. To some, the authors are unknown and the attribution to them is an early church tradition.
I know I'm not the first non-Catholic Freeper to state this, but I have no problem with the writings of the early church "fathers" being used for back up and attestation of the Scriptures as they were received and used throughout the congregations of the believers during those early centuries. The fact that these documents were openly accepted and counted on as the source for the truths of the faith as taught by Jesus and his Apostles is how we can know without doubt that we have copies of the manuscripts in their original languages to stand as our authority today. I've heard that the entire New Testament can be extrapolated just from the writings of these early leaders. And as far as "tradition" is concerned, I also have no problem with accepting the place of these teachings. But, unless they can be verified by Holy Scripture and as long as they do not contradict Scripture, they are part of the history of our faith. But, outside of Holy Scripture, there is no other authority we have above them and that is why God gave them to us.
However, as much as you sound like you want me to admit that this "proves" the case for Apostolic Succession, I heartily disagree. The ONLY way anyone can know if teachings are Apostolic today is if they can be proved by Holy Scripture. Rather than presume the Catholic Church today has an Infallible Magesterium that alone has authority to interpret Scripture because of this supposed succession, why not allow what Scripture clearly states which is that the Bible is the infallible, divinely inspired and inerrant word of God and the Holy Spirit is given to each believer to "lead us into all truth"?