Of course. This "knowledge" was called Apostolic Tradition - which you seem to refuse to take into consideration when developing doctrines and what God has revealed to man.
Regards
"This "knowledge" was called Apostolic Tradition - which you seem to refuse to take into consideration when developing doctrines and what God has revealed to man."
_________________________________
Of course this "Apostolic Tradition" was discarded AFTER the Apostles words were committed to text. It would be foolish to trust the veracity of oral teachings passed down from generation to generation by fallible men when the inerrant WORD of GOD is available. It would be equally foolish to trust historical documents that are not the inerrant WORD of GOD as equal to the WORD of GOD.
If the Church knew that a book was written by John, and they knew that what John had written was inspired, then doesn't it seem a bit obvious that the first thing created was the inspired written word by which the fathers knew to be inspired? (Pardon my redundancy.) Inspired writing came first, tradition next.
Well, there is lots of "knowledge" that is called Apostolic Tradition. I do trust that which was later written down in the Bible. Writings after that have to pass the same test that any other teaching has to pass unto this day and forward. I cannot trust later writers automatically based only on their say so and their "pedigree".
It reminds me of a status symbol in the 20th century. One knew that he was under the best of care if his shrink, and his shrink's shrink, and so on, could go all the way back to Freud! For similar reasons I think this idea was also wrong because each succeeding "generation" brings with it new opportunities for the insertion of human error.