Right you are.
Right you are.
This is most satisfactory. And conclusions follow.
The Muslims say that we Christians (along with the Jews) are "People of the Book," but that's not quite right: we are, rather, people of the Word.
And the Word is, in fact, a lot bigger than the Book. The Word is the full expression of God; ultimately, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity; the Book, precious as it is, is just one form of expression of the Word.
The Bible does not say "For God so loved the World, He sent a Book." It sways "He sent His only Son."
Which brings us to the consideration that the unwritten teachings of the Apostles, which they learned from Christ and taught first and primarily by oral preaching and example, were just as authoritative as the portions of those same teachings which were ultimately reduced to written text. That is the Church being an embodiment of the Word, and an even fuller one than the Text alone: we are the Body of Christ.
Quick:
1. The Scriptures didn’t die for us obviously. We had a sin problem that could only be solved by death and the shedding of blood.
2. Oral teaching was authoritative because it was emanating from an authority - an apostle. We do not know what was taught, not being there. At the time, it was authoritative.
3. What an apostle taught was authoritative but was never equivalent to the “God-breathed Scriptures.” These are not a mere “reduction” of oral teaching. Saying something like that is a particularly weak view of the inspiration of Scripture. Every word inspired directly by the Holy Spirit.
4. “That is the Church being an embodiment of the Word, and an even fuller one than the Text alone”. Very bad conclusion friend. The church should of course be a reflection of the highest values from His Word, and by the life of Christ being expressed through the life of every born again believer.
Best!
Wrong again: As said, the veracity of oral preaching was subject to verification by the established word of God, and God's means of preservation was writing. (Ex. 17:14; Is. 30:8)
And as said, apostolic preaching as the word of God was inspired of God, and sometimes provided new revelation, neither of which Rome claims, or can claim, for her papal and conciliar pronouncements.
And Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
In contrast to apostolic preaching, invoking oral tradition provides Catholicism with a carte blanche to justify her traditions of men.