I never said that Sha'ul's letters aren't Scripture or should be removed from the canon, and clearly Kefa considered them to be inspired. I just doubt that Sha'ul knew when he was penning them that they would turn out to be so. He clearly wrote them as commentary on the existing Scriptures, which means that they can't simply be read as stand-alone pieces if you want to understand his real points. Further, with the exception of a few, like Romans, in which he was simply expounding doctrine in general, all of his epistles were written to deal with some crisis or another that we aren't given the full details on, so we have to be careful not to misunderstand the one-half of a conversation that is recorded for us.
Put it this way: If you read only the Torah, and rarely if ever touched on the Prophets, Writings, or New Testament, wouldn't you likely develop some incorrect theologies because of the lack of balance? Well, what about people who develop 90% of their theologies and sermons from Sha'ul's letters, then?
I'm just arguing for context and balance, that's all.
He clearly wrote them as commentary on the existing Scriptures, which means that they can't simply be read as stand-alone pieces if you want to understand his real points.I cannot confirm that Paul knew that he was writing scripture, but just commentary? Is there something new in Paul's letters not found elsewhere in scriptures? If not, why are his letters even included in scriptures?
Somewhere along the line it had to be revealed that the letters were inspired, or we would not know even now.