I like Rob Skiba's take. Paul's letters are divine commentary. They are not to be taken in a way that nullifies or contradicts anything the rest of t he bible teaches. The only new ideas Paul shares are clearly indicated by him as his own opinions. I follow the God of Israel and His Anointed. Many people, apostles or not, have enlightening things to say about the Scriptures. Test all things.
Yes, divine "commentary" by someone who had a face-to-face encounter with the risen Christ. What a bunch of crap! Paul's letters should be recognized as canon, though I suspect you adhere to much more serious heresies (as does OP and most who post/comment around these parts).
Why aren't all of Paul's letters in the Bible if your perspective is correct?
The 66 "books" of the Bible are exactly what God wanted to communicate to us in writing. Did none of the 39 (?) authors write anything extrabiblical? A silly thought, but you are allowed to entertain it.
Looking specifically at the New Testament, we have historical accounts (gospels + Acts), pastoral letters (1&2 Tim, Titus), prophecy (Revelation), systematic theology (Romans, Hebrews), Christian living (Ephesians, 1-3 John) etc.
What isn't covered? Why should we try to add to it? Likewise, what can/should be removed, and for what reason?
Apparently you believe that Paul's writings should be removed? Good thing we can reconstruct most of his arguments from his extensive use of the OT!
'tis indeed the "season of deception"
(post is archived)