A large portion of the nt was written by people who never met Jesus that is my point. At least Luke and Paul were never present for any of his teaching. Therefore most of it was oral tradition which is unreliable by protestant standards.
I've already reminded you that PAUL met Christ on the road to Damascus and was caught up in heaven into the presence of God.
That may be true for Luke, but Paul was likely well acquainted with Jesus and His teachings.
Paul was a pharisee, and an adult, and in Jerusalem at the time the persecution of the church broke out. there is every likelihood that he encountered Jesus while Jesus was going through Israel teaching and healing.
You stated as if a fact that Paul was “never present for any of his teaching”.
Prove it.
Your logic is flawed. A large portion of the Old Testament is written by many who never met God. In fact, apart from Moses and Elijah who saw God's back, no one ever saw God. That doesn't mean they didn't write down what was told to them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit nor would any true believer consider what they wrote unreliable.
I'm not sure how you arrived at what is "reliable" protestant standards or "oral tradition". 2/3 of the NT was written by Paul and Luke. Paul penned letters to the various church on various topics who, btw, did see Jesus at various times. Luke wrote historical documents (The Gospel According to Luke and Acts) based upon eye witness accounts of the events and certainly able to be verified and confirmed by those around him. In fact, Luke wrote more of the New Testament than any other author if memory serves me correctly. These are not "oral tradition". John, James, Peter, and the rest were penned for various reasons. All were written and are considered inspired just as the Old Testament is inspired.
Really??? Paul wrote the church epistles...Where'd he get that information???
Which portions?
Are you a MORMON??
Paul received direct revelation from the Lord, and most of what he wrote was written directly as Scripture. And while God also inspired the actual writing of Truths from oral tradition, this not only does not mean that those orally passed-down truths were all given under plenary inspiration of God (any more than in the case of quoting pagan prophets), but it also cannot mean that all that is passed down orally is wholly inspired of God.
The reality is that oral tradition is by nature unreliable, being supremely subject to corruption, while as can be more shown, God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation.
And yet since some of Scripture consistent of teachings and records that were passed down, orally or in some form of writing, the issue is on what basis are those who be accepted as being from God, versus all that claims to be from God, whether orally passed down or in writing.