Are you unaware that the Gospels were placed at the start of the New Testament, not because of when they were written, but because they were chronological? I really wish you would get it out of your head that I in any way say parts of Scripture count more than others or don't count at all. I have never said such and you have no proof that I ever have. And may I remind you, sectarianism and splits did not begin after the Reformation. There have always been disagreements and differences and that is why Scripture MUST be our only infallible authority because it alone came from God. Even the writings of the ECFs do not hold a candle to the infallible truths of Scripture. Man is and will always be fallible and those who hold to man-made doctrines and dogmas cheat themselves as well as their members out of the assurance we have that only Scripture provides.
Those that pervert the truth Peter spoke about when he said about Paul's writings, "speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Get that, those who are "unlearned", or ignorant, and "unstable" distort not only Paul's but all of Scripture and they do it to their OWN destruction. It's strange that you claim "we" argue and refuse to back up our positions with any suitable Scripture, since we nearly always do include Scripture relevant to the topic. Some even post teachings of your church straight from the Catechism or approved documents yet even then they are denied and danced around. I get it that you have a whole lot riding on the belief that your leaders cannot be wrong about anything, so I understand the aversion to admitting they could be, but it is your own eternal destiny that is riding on it. You owe it to yourself to know not just what you believe but why you believe and if all you got is "because that's what we believe", I feel sorry for you.
Are you unaware that the Gospels were placed at the start of the New Testament, not because of when they were written, but because they were chronological? I really wish you would get it out of your head that I in any way say parts of Scripture count more than others or don't count at all. I have never said such and you have no proof that I ever have.
You told me that Jesus was for the Jews only, as was Peter. It is Paul that is only for the Gentiles. Now you tell me that chronological order matters, not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at the time that they were written. You told me that Paul had further revelation than the Gospels and therefore that is why we should pay special attention to them over the Gospels.
Interesting. Why bother with the OT, then. If Paul supersedes the Gospels, and the Gospels supersede the OT, then why do you guys so often refer to the OT?
But to come down to the crux of the matter: if later revelation is more important and the order of the books of the NT is important, then admit that Peter, James, Jude and John (both Epistles and the Apocalypse) are more important than Paul. John's Apocalypse was a revelation indeed and revealed in much detail. His epistles are much later and written about much later things than Paul's.
Why not jettison Pauline worship and replace it with equal fervour in the regard of John?
It's strange that you claim "we" argue and refuse to back up our positions with any suitable Scripture, since we nearly always do include Scripture relevant to the topic. Some even post teachings of your church straight from the Catechism or approved documents yet even then they are denied and danced around.
I don't dance. You get it from me straight and you always have.
I get it that you have a whole lot riding on the belief that your leaders cannot be wrong about anything, so I understand the aversion to admitting they could be, but it is your own eternal destiny that is riding on it. You owe it to yourself to know not just what you believe but why you believe and if all you got is "because that's what we believe", I feel sorry for you.
You have just been shown that your logic puts you into an indefensible position and tried to wriggle out of it. I showed you further how your logic in that post puts you into an even more indefensible position. Paul came later than the Gospels, you say, so his revelations are more relevant. However, Peter, Jude, and John were written later than Paul. Why don't you have superior regard for them on that basis?
But wait, you say, the chronological events are really the things that are important. Peter, Jude and John's epistles and Apocalypse occurred chronologically later. Why don't you have superior regard for them on that basis?
But wait, you say, the listing of the books in the Bible are really the most important. Well, Peter, James, Jude and John's epistles and Apocalypse occur later. Why don't you superior regard for them on that basis?
Please answer that, gentle correspondent.