Jnorm888, an Eastern Orthodox, said:
"Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity. They held to the Asiety of the Father. So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters....You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles....If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong."
Papias was a premillennialist, and he apparently was a disciple of the apostle John. Are you a premillenialist? And if one generation must have the same beliefs as the one that came before it, then why don't you assume that later Roman Catholic beliefs you disagree with, for example, must have existed in the previous generations? How could one generation of Roman Christians contradict the previous generation?
There was widespread opposition to the veneration of images among the early patristic Christians. And they don't seem to have believed in praying to the deceased. Why does Eastern Orthodoxy venerate images and pray to the deceased? The early patristic Christians widely interpreted scripture as teaching a young earth (see here and here). They also widely held that Mary was a sinner in her behavior, for example. Why doesn't Eastern Orthodoxy require its followers to hold such positions?
The beliefs of post-apostolic Christians aren't as significant as you're making them out to be. They are significant, but they're only one line of evidence among others. You can't ignore arguments from the Biblical documents or evidence from non-Christian sources (what Josephus wrote about Christianity, what Celsus wrote, etc.), for example. And the relationship of the early post-apostolic Christians to the New Testament is more significant than their relationship to the Old Testament. It's not as if Papias was a disciple of Moses or Polycarp was a disciple of Isaiah. They may have heard an apostle comment on a passage from Deuteronomy or Isaiah that they discuss, but not necessarily, and they probably didn't hear apostolic commentary on every Old Testament passage.
And it's not as though post-apostolic Christians are the only Christian sources we could go to in order to get reassurance that our interpretation of an apostolic document is correct. If we want reassurance that we're interpreting Paul's view of justification correctly, for example, we don't have to go to what Clement of Rome, Hermas, or Cyprian said about the subject. We can consult Paul's companion Luke. Or his companion Mark. Or his fellow apostle John. Etc. The idea that we might be wrong in our interpretation of Paul and Luke and Mark and John, etc. is more dubious than the suggestion that we might be wrong in our interpretation of Paul alone. (And one Pauline document can give us reassurance of our view of another Pauline document.) Once we get to the early post-apostolic Christians, we've already gotten multiple lines of reassurance of our interpretation. If you're going to claim that we should keep looking for more reassurances until we get to a source you agree with, then why couldn't Roman Catholics, for example, do the same with regard to early Western sources you disagree with? If we want to know what the earliest Roman Christians believed, maybe we should keep looking for confirmation of our interpretations until we get to the earliest Roman Christians who agreed with Roman Catholicism.
"AND CALVINISTS are called CALVINISTS because they follow? end of story. Your view of scripture comes from Calvin & friends."
Why are Catholics called "Catholics"? Why does the Church of Christ call itself the "Church of Christ"? Groups don't always name themselves after the earliest source of their beliefs. Sometimes using the name of a later source, not the earliest one, allows them to better distinguish themselves from another group, for example. What if every group that considers itself Christian just called itself "Christian", with no further clarification?