a) The Church read scriptures liturgically in a cycle at least from the third century onward. God only knows what was read and how before that, but I would chance to bet that the traditional Churches are closer to the ancient custom then the newly invented man-made religions. In the Orthodox Church it is still annual and in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church tri-annual.
b) The readings are select verses from the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels which repeat every cycle. The Novus Ordo Catholic Church also reads liturgically from the Old Testament (the Orthodox only at Vespers).
c) The Orthodox Church chants the entire Old Testament during the Great Lent (40 days) in passing, without homilies, in what is more a biblical retelling of events leading up to Jesus' birth and crucifixion and resurrection then actual Bible reading.
d) Pauline Epistles are read by laity and are not considered the word of God (and the congregation sits). The Gospels are read by ordained clergy only and are treated as God's own words (and the congregation stands).
e) The Church teachings are based on the Gospels, and Pauls' Epistle sare interpreted in the light of and subjected to the Gospels. Paul's Epistles are selectively used when they are in agreement with the Gospels.
f) Paul's writings are clearly "harmonized" in the Nicene Creed in the beginning (where it adds to Paul's words that the Father and the Son are of the same essence) as well as in the part where it says that Christ raised himself (rather than being raised by God, as Paul says), indicating that Paul was "close" but not on the mark.
From all this, it is clear that Paul's words in the Church are never to be confused with Christ's, or perchance placing Paul above the Gospels, as the Protestants do (and as their Gnostics relatives did).
From all this, it is clear that Paul's words in the Church are never to be confused with Christ's, or perchance placing Paul above the Gospels, as the Protestants do (and as their Gnostics relatives did).
There is no reason not to suppose that Paul's epistles were massaged. We have overwhelming evidence of Gospel and Petrine editing. I wonder what of those Pauline letters that did not make the cut. What were their contents? From what I've read, Paul wrote hundreds of letters during his ministry. If these were the best (after massaging), then what were the worst?
But Paul after all, was a rather pushy guy with a chip on his shoulder and a large inferiority complex towards the Apostles. I can understand his appeal to some when I look at some of the more successful televangelists who seem to pattern themselves after some of his character traits...