But that doesn't make the Old Testament obsolete. If I quote from the OT, a valid response from you could be "that's no longer applicable because Jesus fulfilled it" (such as sacrificing animals). Outside of that, I would say that everything stands as is.
St. Paul's entire ministry is based on demonstrating the incomplete understanding of what saves (grace, not the law). No one is saying other parts are "wrong," FK.
As far as I can tell, you just did within the same thought. :) If Paul had an incomplete understanding and was personally taught everything he knew by Christ Himself, then he was either wrong, or Christ intentionally wanted Paul's writings to be incomplete. Neither makes any sense to me. If God's intended revelation to us was fully contained in the Gospels, then our Bibles today would consist of 4 books.
It is in the spirit of the Gospels that we must interpret the rest because the Gospels reflect Christ's full revelation of God to men in the divine economy.
But Jesus quotes liberally from the OT, thus affirming that it is still in force. He says:
Matt 22:29 : Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Jesus, knowing that the NT is on the way, says that NOT knowing the OT leads to error.
Our Christian faith is meaningless without the Gospels. The Gospels define Christianity. The same cannot be said of any other section of the Bible. The Gospels are the mind and the heart of Jesus.
All true, BUT this does NOT mean that any other part of the Bible is "less" true. What you said makes the Gospels rightfully and critically important, but not to the exclusion of the fullness of God's revelation to us. Within the Bible, one CANNOT have the full and intended understanding of God by reading ONLY the Gospels.
Now that I can agree with.
The entire Bible is true; if we actually only needed the Gospels then we would have only the Gospels.
The problem is in interpretation, as so many of theological debates can attest.