If my paraphrasing of what you actually said does not equate to the actual intent of your postings, then please clarify. I can only go on what you actually post, not what you think that you are posting.
As to the Gospels versus the Epistles, I said the epistles were "further revelation". This means they contained MORE truth than what Jesus taught during his three year ministry.
You mean Paul's letters contain more truth than the Gospels. Hmmm. What about John? His writings refer to events after Paul, are listed after Paul in the Bible, and were written after Paul. His revelation, instead of being secret was written for all to see. Tell me why Paul so fascinates the antiCatholics, if you please.
My "logic" hasn't been destroyed, Mark, only what you think or pretend I am saying. But, go ahead, do what you want, think what you want, I can only say what I believe in the way I know how to say it.
In other words, your claims that Paul occurs after the Gospels, that Paul was written after the Gospels, and that Paul is listed Biblically after the Gospels and therefore contains MORE truth than the Gospels do not apply to John. Again, I will ask you: why do you guys worship Paul as opposed to John, if not simply following in the footsteps of the Paulian heretics of the first millennium?
Yes, Paul's letters contain additional truth NOT revealed by Jesus while he was still here on Earth and they continued his revelation to man. The Gospels only speak about what Jesus taught and did and happened while he was here. You know that, right? The same with John and James and Peter and Jude, they all spoke the truths revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. It is NOT that one supersedes another or replaces the other and it certainly has nothing to do with when they were written down. If you were reading a history of the world, would you start at the founding of America?
I really am mystified why some here seem to presume because Paul wrote the majority of the New Testament that anyone who bases theology on what he taught are "worshiping" him. Tell me why Catholics have such an aversion to Paul? Do you not think it important that God included so many of Paul's epistles in the Bible? Do you think perhaps that there was an important reason for that? Why the need to label people as "Paulicans"? Are you even aware of what the Paulican heresy was about? Here is a little info for you:
Little is known of the tenets of the Paulicians, as we are confined for information to the reports of opponents and a few fragments of Sergius' letters which they have preserved. Their system was dualistic,[12] although some have argued that it was actually adoptionist in nature.[13][14] In it there are two principles, two kingdoms. The Evil Spirit is the author of, and lord of, the present visible world; the Good Spirit, of the future world.[2] Of their views about the creation of man, little is known but what is contained in the ambiguous words of Sergius. This passage seems to teach that Adam's sin of disobedience was a blessing in disguise, and that a greater sin than his is the sin against the Church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism
A lot of the information available comes from a primary Paulican source, called The Key of Truth, a statement of doctrinal beliefs discovered in a Russian Armenian colony in 1828. They had once been thought to be Manichean in theology, but the Key suggests otherwise. They believed that Christ became the Son of God when he was adopted by the Father through his baptism; because Jesus demonstrated sinless obedience to God's will, the Holy Spirit "admitted him into the mystery of the holy Godship" (Key of Truth 80). Contrary to John 1:1-18, the Paulicans believed that Jesus Christ was a created being, someone who "is faithful to his creator, as was Moses in all his house" (Key 94). Accordingly, they viewed Jesus primarily as a teacher, acknowledging that His death was a sacrifice, but not as an atonement for sin. In fact, Karapet Mkrttchean, a member of the Paulicans, confessed on his deathbed in 1837 that their group had been taught that Jesus was not God at all (Frederick Conybeare "Paulicans" Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., xxiv-xxvi) The Paulican view of Christ is summed up this way:
"It was in the season of his [Jesus'] maturity that he received baptism; then it was that he received authority, received the high-priesthood, received the kingdom and the office of chief shepherd. Moreover, he was then chosen; then he won lordship... Then he became Savior of us sinners; then he was filled with the Godhead." (Key 75). Their heretical views extended to the Holy Spirit, whom they viewed also as a creature, as a prayer in the Key states, "Blessed art thou, Spirit of the Heavenly Father, forasmuch as thou wast made by the Father." (Key 14).
The Paulicans rejected infant baptism, preferring to baptize at age 30 to conform with the example of Christ (Conybeare, xiii). Before baptism, initiates underwent exorcism by one of the "elect" leaders of the church; then baptism was performed in the nude, both by immersion and pouring. It apparently was also common procedure to believe that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven.(Conybeare, xxxv, xxxviii & 123)
In other ways, the Paulicans retained many Catholic distinctives, such as belief in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ (Key 117 and 123) and prayers for the dead (Key 120).
Such doctrines lead Baptist scholar McGoldrick to conclude: "When, by means of the Key, the Paulicans are permitted to speak for themselves, it becomes crystal clear that they were not Baptists. In fact, when judged by a traditional creed or standard of orthodoxy, they cannot be regarded as Christians at all" (Baptist Successionism 34) http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/paulicans.html
Does this change your mind a little, or will you continue to falsely label us?