That has already been disproved by the passages from Revelation. Repeating an untruth will not make it true.
"What St Peter said of St Paul, or what St Paul thought of St Peter, is entirely beside the point. "
No, it is not. It shows the even in the lifetimes of the Apostles, they were already viewing their own writings as God-breathed Scripture.
Paul even specifically refers to a Gospel (Luke 10:7) passage as "Scripture".
1 Timothy 5:18
For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to prop up the "authority" of the RCC by knocking down Scripture a couple of rungs. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now.
> That has already been disproved by the passages from Revelation. Repeating an untruth will not make it true.
No, you provided a self-referential argument, not “disproof”. St-John-said-that-Jesus-sent-him-a-vision-that-said-to-write. That’s hearsay at best — and requires the reader to accept the Divine Inspiration of the book of Revelation. That is a long, long way from “proof”.
> No, it is not. It shows the even in the lifetimes of the Apostles, they were already viewing their own writings as God-breathed Scripture.
Which, again, is a very long way from conclusive proof, requiring the reader to pay heed to the advice given by our Lord and Master to St Thomas after the resurrection. It becomes a matter of Faith, not Proof.
> This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to prop up the “authority” of the RCC by knocking down Scripture a couple of rungs. It hasn’t worked in the past and it won’t work now.
The RCC’s “authority” is self-proclaimed. Most religions do that. Saying it doesn’t necessarily make it so.
The Roman Catholic Church is undeniably very old. But antiquity and lasting power do not equate to infallibility or authority. Were that the case, the Freemasons would arguably have an even better claim to infallibility and authority, as their heritage arguably traces back to the founding of King Solomon’s Temple, and even beyond that into the mists of Time when the pyramids were built...
That said, the truth of the argument above remains: Jesus did not himself personally write any of the Gospel. And, during his 3 1/2 year ministry on earth, he did not direct his disciples to do so either. Even post-resurrection thru to his ascent into heaven. Those are facts of Scripture.
What happened under Divine Inspiration is another matter.
Paul even specifically refers to a Gospel (Luke 10:7) passage as "Scripture".
1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Wouldn't the absence of quotation marks in the Koine Testament and Paul's ommission of the γαρ (which appears in Luke) make it a matter of conjecture whether Paul viewed the emphasized section as a quote from a written text and another example of what "Scripture says"? The και I think goes in favor of your argument. The textual guys would wonder if Paul was quoting Luke or some written version of "Q". I'm not sure which way that would cut, but Ihtink in favor of your side.
Certainly the "tradition" of where to put periods would cut your way. With different punctuation you get something like
Scripture says "You shall not muzzle... grain." Και (which you could render "Besides" or Also) the laborer deserves his pay.where the second is not a quote but just a commonplace.
My arrogant opinion is that the distinctions and "proofs" won't be as crisp and clear as either side would like them to be.