I have yet to fully understand and study the Church’s position on St. Paul. I do know that his writings in the ***Church are not on the same level as the Gospels (when Paul’s Epistles are read, the congregation sits; his writings are read by a lay person. The congregation stands when the Gospels are read; the Gospel reading is always done by a priest, and homilies [commentaries] are always made on the Gospels; the Epistles are located in a different part of the church; the Gospels are always on the altar; there is a lot of symbolism in all that).***
So it is the Word of God, but not as good as the gospels? I don’t understand that. If it is the Word of God, it is ALL equally important. How can you differentiate between them if they are ALL inspired?
This is not something new. Jews stand in the synagogues only when the Torah is read. This is because they believe that Torah was dictated to Moses word-by-word and that the Torah represents the actual words of God (just as the Muslims believe that Allah dictated to Mohammad the entire Koran).
The Apostolic Church acquired its lytrigical and othe rpractices directly from Judaism from which it grew, and that includes incense, chanting, bowing, vestments, etc.
Just as the Jews believe Torah was dictated to Moses, the Apostlic Church teaches that the Gospels are actual eyewitness accounts of God living among people and speaking. Thus they are not "visions" and "messages" experience in dreams or in a trans, but direct words spoken by God himself in front of everyone.
Thus the living, witnessed word of the Lord, the Gospels, is the holiest of all Scriptures. But, of course, all scriputres (whatever you happen to include as such) is good and profitable forreading and for doctrine. The trouble here is to determine what exactly is the "scripture." On that we do not agree, although the Protestants accept part of the Christian canon put together by the Church.