Just what do you have against Paul? Was he not an Apostle like Peter and John, and the others? Why do you think Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are any better that Romans or Hebrews?
You haven’t answered my post as to whether the God-breathed verses in Numbers are as important as the God-spoken Sermon on the Mount.
I don’t expect you to, since that would expose a great weakness in the recent theologies that have been developed. All the certain and relevant ground has already been broken. For 1500 years.
So, I’ll answer your question in return, even if you don’t dare to answer mine.
I have nothing against the second greatest of all the Apostles. Paul is relentless in spreading the Gospel (the Gospel, mind you) and in chastizing and beating the churches in his bishopric into line. He is a hard taskmaster and will not tolerate dissent or heresy.
I find it ironic that the greatest followers of Paul are some of the greatest heretics themselves, but I digress.
Paul was an Apostle and was changed by the Lord. He was great and did great things.
Jesus Christ was God come down to us in human form, but was still God. His words are, well, Gospel. The Apostles used His words in their fashion to spread to all the world. But it all comes back to His words.
Analogy: Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity. All scientific and engineering work that developed from that was very important, but Einstein is always referred back to.
Same with Planck. Same with Newton.
First principles, sir. You must go back to first principles if the originator was a man. You must certainly go back to first principles if the originator was God.