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!
True, but more. It was authoritative because the Apostles got it from Christ. Therefore it was authoritative for ALL time.
"We do not know what was taught, not being there."
What? What??? ---but you don't understand: we WERE there. The Church --- the believers --- the followers of Christ were there, they heard, they saw, they observed, and they "went and did likewise."
That's how we know what the Apostle taught: by seeing, experiencing, and imitating what the Churches DID: how they believed, how they prayed, how they taught and how they lived their lives.
" At the time, it was authoritative."
It's still authoritative!
Think of this: in the Acts of the Apostles, it says that Jesus taught the disciples many things during the 40 days between His Resurrection from the dead and His Ascension into heaven. But does that book --- the Book of Acts, or any book of the NT --- quote for us one single sentence of what He said in those must-have-been-amazing 40 days? No, actually. Not one sentence. But was it authortative? Yes, and for all time. Forty days of teaching from the One who Died and Rose and now will die no more.
Now: do you think He would give us all this teaching, and then fail to provide a way for it to be transmitted to us? I think not.
How is it that all the early churches thought it HAD been transmitted them? It was in the way they prayed, the structure of how they were organized, the example of how to worship andhow to live, the thick, deep, rich culture and heritage of faith and morals and new life in Christ which took root in the churches in EVERY continent --- Europe and Asia and Africa --- planted by their Apostolic founders?
"What an apostle taught was authoritative but was never equivalent to the 'God-breathed Scriptures.'"
Why do you say this? On what basis? This statement of yours is completely unsupported by Scripture. In fact, Scripture says the opposite:
1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering everything I told you and for holding to the traditions that I passed on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Therefore THESE Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2 Thessalonians) affirming a particular kind of Apostolic, capital-T Tradition, are still applicable to us: "Stand fast and hold the Traditions."
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..
Or do you think that *all* Scripture is useful for teaching, EXCEPT the Scripture that tells us to hold fast to Tradition?
`
Do you think that the teachings of St. Paul were NOT God-breathed when he preached them, but WERE God-breathed when he wrote them?