[amosmoses]

You just made my point. We have an advantage that early christians do not. Why do we need the traditions passed down from uninspired men. None of whom were ever appointed to the office of apostle.

[Dominick]

None of whom were ever appointed to the office of apostle.

Actually some were appointed as the successor to the Apostles. No Bible existed, there were no inspired writings. Nothing was there for them to use, until 397 or so when St. Jerome presented it to the Pope and the Bishops.

John was the last surviving apostle. He wrote the Revelations of the Apocalypse in 85-90AD. What did the Christians do without a "Bible" and without Living Apostles? They were taught by the successors, chosen by the Apostles. In fact, St. Paul was the first successor to the deposed Apostle, Judas. St. Paul was not chosen by the living Jesus, but by the Glorified Jesus.

Are you saying we should ignore St. Paul because he was not an original Apostle?

[gbcdoj]

Why do we need the traditions passed down from uninspired men

Why did St. Paul think we did? "Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. ... And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also." (2 Tim. 1:13, 2:2).

[jo kus]

"Why do we need the traditions passed down from uninspired men."

How do you know the writer of Hebrews or Revelation was inspired? Who decided that they were inspired men writing the Word of God?

Regards