I didn't particularly address that post to you, kepha (if you would like, I think I still have an earlier post touching on the stuff we were talking about earlier. More than happy to follow that up 
), so I'm not sure how much you and Dogknox line up on this issue. I suspect you might disagree slightly on the extent to which you are arguing your respective points.
To me, it ultimately doesn't matter all that much what the other apostles wrote (although it seems highly likely to me that Luke, if not the other writers, and if not the Q document itself, contained material from more than just that which was penned by Peter, Paul, John, and perhaps Matthew). There were not 12 different teachings. There is one teaching, from multiple perspectives. What matters is that the teaching of Jesus was accurately recorded. It is surely beyond question that it is far more likely that Jesus' teaching was accurately recorded when written down within a generation, than it is that the same level of accuracy would be achieved over 2000 years of oral tradition, unless (as you I think you do) you presuppose an infallible apostolic office.
The rest of your post is a strawman. I'm not arguing about whether or not the church had authority to teach. What we're discussing is whether the apostles expected to teach from source other than what Jesus himself first taught, and beyond and apart from what they had already heard. Sure, in the early days, it was not important to write these things down. As the first generation died, though, it was. This is why when the church father's discuss orthodox teaching, they most regularly go straight to the Scriptures, rather than going "Frank taught by Freddie taught by Irenaeus, taught Ignatius by Polycarp by John by Jesus". Certainly, the Pre-Nicene fathers in particular will reference succession, but virtually always as a way of verifying that the written apostolic deposit was accurate.
From where I'm standing, your definition of office has nothing to do with Scripture, and everything to do with a definition that suits your argument.
Your reference to Hebrews 7:23 is mostly irrelevant. Please note that the whole point of that verse is comparing the human priesthood, which requires successive people to hold the office, as compared to the priesthood of Jesus, which lasts for ever because he lives for ever. This follows the earlier discussions of Jesus being bigger than prophets, being bigger than angels, being the full revelation of God.
To make the side remark about the priesthood your sole Scriptural argument for the continuation of the apostolic (not priestly) office in exactly the same terms and in such a way that accuracy of teaching is guaranteed is stretching things a bit.
If you want to argue for teaching from the lips of Jesus not recorded in Scripture, fine. But you have to prove to me an unbroken chain of that teaching reaching all the way back to the lips of Jesus. If you can't at least give me someone putting it in his very mouth, then it's not worth considering.
), so I'm not sure how much you and Dogknox line up on this issue. I suspect you might disagree slightly on the extent to which you are arguing your respective points.To me, it ultimately doesn't matter all that much what the other apostles wrote (although it seems highly likely to me that Luke, if not the other writers, and if not the Q document itself, contained material from more than just that which was penned by Peter, Paul, John, and perhaps Matthew). There were not 12 different teachings. There is one teaching, from multiple perspectives. What matters is that the teaching of Jesus was accurately recorded. It is surely beyond question that it is far more likely that Jesus' teaching was accurately recorded when written down within a generation, than it is that the same level of accuracy would be achieved over 2000 years of oral tradition, unless (as you I think you do) you presuppose an infallible apostolic office.
The rest of your post is a strawman. I'm not arguing about whether or not the church had authority to teach. What we're discussing is whether the apostles expected to teach from source other than what Jesus himself first taught, and beyond and apart from what they had already heard. Sure, in the early days, it was not important to write these things down. As the first generation died, though, it was. This is why when the church father's discuss orthodox teaching, they most regularly go straight to the Scriptures, rather than going "Frank taught by Freddie taught by Irenaeus, taught Ignatius by Polycarp by John by Jesus". Certainly, the Pre-Nicene fathers in particular will reference succession, but virtually always as a way of verifying that the written apostolic deposit was accurate.
From where I'm standing, your definition of office has nothing to do with Scripture, and everything to do with a definition that suits your argument.
Your reference to Hebrews 7:23 is mostly irrelevant. Please note that the whole point of that verse is comparing the human priesthood, which requires successive people to hold the office, as compared to the priesthood of Jesus, which lasts for ever because he lives for ever. This follows the earlier discussions of Jesus being bigger than prophets, being bigger than angels, being the full revelation of God.
To make the side remark about the priesthood your sole Scriptural argument for the continuation of the apostolic (not priestly) office in exactly the same terms and in such a way that accuracy of teaching is guaranteed is stretching things a bit.
If you want to argue for teaching from the lips of Jesus not recorded in Scripture, fine. But you have to prove to me an unbroken chain of that teaching reaching all the way back to the lips of Jesus. If you can't at least give me someone putting it in his very mouth, then it's not worth considering.
