Do fundamentalists exaggerate Paul's significance?

[Josheb]

PosingasGreg:

Paul was the greatest of the Apostles, as the Lord chose Him to give Revelations such as in Romans

What makes Paul the "greatest" of the apostles? Did not Paul himself explicitly state he was the least of them?

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Why should I take your word over Paul's?

 

[JesusFan]

PosingasGreg:

What makes Paul the "greatest" of the apostles? Did not Paul himself explicitly state he was the least of them?

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Why should I take your word over Paul's?

He was stating that he was the last to be called as such, that he did not deserve it due to how he had so persecuted the Church, but still truth remains Jesus Himself gave him revelations greater then any other Apostle, see Romans

 

[makesends]

PosingasGreg:

Can you please provide proof Paul wrote his letters under the authority of God (the non-existent God I do not believe exists)?

My post was written before I knew Greg was an atheist—more than just a bitter mocker and jeerer.

What does that have to do with the exaggeration of Paul's significance?

Nor do I see how his OP demonstrates its title. He was rather obviously trying to imply something he did not state.

My response dealt with his OP in similar fashion.

 

[makesends]

PosingasGreg:

What makes Paul the "greatest" of the apostles? Did not Paul himself explicitly state he was the least of them?

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Why should I take your word over Paul's?

Not everybody calls Paul the "greatest" of the Apostles. Defeating the claim does nothing for your thesis, unless only for those claiming he was the "greatest" of the Apostles.

However, "Greg", why did you not instead, or, in addition, ask where it is shown in Scripture, or why @JesusFan says, that Paul is the "greatest" of the Apostles?

 

[Josheb]

He was stating that he was the last to be called as such...

No, he used the word "least," not the word "last," When Paul uses the word "last" he is referring to those to whom Jesus made an appearance, not the order in which he became an apostle. Although the Bible does not specify the chronology, it would appear Aquila, Priscilla, and Junias all became apostles chronologically after Paul.

, that he did not deserve it due to how he had so persecuted the Church, but still truth remains Jesus Himself gave him revelations greater then any other Apostle, see Romans

Then he was not the greatest and the question asked remains unanswered.




PosingasGreg: You said Paul was the greatest apostle. I would like to know upon what basis that view is based. What makes Paul the "greatest" of the apostles? Did not Paul himself explicitly state he was the least of them? Why should I take your word over Paul's? This op asks whether or not fundamentalists exaggerate Paul's significance. Post #4 would appear to prove that point by claiming he was the greatest without any proof of that assertion.

 

[Josheb]

My post was written before I knew Greg was an atheist—more than just a bitter mocker and jeerer.

Nor do I see how his OP demonstrates its title. He was rather obviously trying to imply something he did not state.

My response dealt with his OP in similar fashion.

And I am arguing as a more rational and effective version of @Greg. The title of the op simply asks a question. Do fundamentalists exaggerate Paul's significance? There's already a post saying Paul was the greatest apostle. Thati is all the evidence need to support the Premise Paul is viewed with greater significance. The question is, whether or not that significance is exaggerated.

You do know that Paul wrote his books under the authority of God himself, right? Paul's Gospel isn't about Paul.

I know some self-identifying Christians assert Paul wrote his letters under the authority of God Himself but that is not proof of anything. I am, therefore, asking you to prove the assertion. Your answer will go directly toward answering the title inquiry and then the inquiry about who is more likely to know the truth about Paul (his original converts, his contemporaries, or those living centuries later who garner their understanding from modern sources).

You said Paul wrote under God's authority. Show me the proof. In the absence of such proof I will conclude Post #2 is another example of Paul's significance being exaggerated.

Do you consider yourself fundamentalist (someone who believes they have had a personal conversion experience to follow Jesus and believes the Bible is the inspired word of God which is inerrant and to be read literally as sound exegesis warrants)?

 

[Josheb]

.....why did you not instead, or, in addition, ask where it is shown in Scripture, or why @JesusFan says, that Paul is the "greatest" of the Apostles?

I did. I also provided proof Paul stating he was the least, not the greatest. Awaiting @JesusFan 's response.

 

[atpollard]

PosingasGreg: You said Paul was the greatest apostle. I would like to know upon what basis that view is based. What makes Paul the "greatest" of the apostles? Did not Paul himself explicitly state he was the least of them? Why should I take your word over Paul's? This op asks whether or not fundamentalists exaggerate Paul's significance. Post #4 would appear to prove that point by claiming he was the greatest without any proof of that assertion.

Then take Paul's word for both his preeminence and his humility.

2 Corinthians 11:16-33 [NASB]

16 Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if [you do,] receive me even as foolish, so that I also may boast a little. 17 What I am saying, I am not saying as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. 18 Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. 19 For you, being [so] wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. 20 For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, if anyone devours you, if anyone takes [advantage of] you, if anyone exalts himself, if anyone hits you in the face. 21 To [my] shame I [must] say that we have been weak [by comparison.] But in whatever respect anyone [else] is bold--I am speaking in foolishness--I too am bold. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ?--I am speaking as if insane--I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in [danger of] death. 24 Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine [lashes.] 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent [adrift] at sea. 26 [I have been] on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from [my] countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers at sea, dangers among false brothers; 27 [I have been] in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 Apart from [such] external things, there is the daily pressure on me [of] concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern? ​

​

30 If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, 33 and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and [so] escaped his hands.​

2 Corinthians 12:1-12 [NASB]

1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not beneficial; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows-- 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. 5 In behalf of such a man I will boast; but in my own behalf I will not boast, except regarding [my] weaknesses. 6 For if I do wish to boast I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth; but I refrain [from this,] so that no one will credit me with more than he sees [in] me or hears from me. 7 Because of the extraordinary [greatness] of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in distresses, in persecutions, in difficulties, in behalf of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong. ​

​

11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, since I was in no respect inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. 12 The distinguishing marks of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs, wonders, and miracles.​

 

[makesends]

And I am arguing as a more rational and effective version of @Greg. The title of the op simply asks a question. Do fundamentalists exaggerate Paul's significance? There's already a post saying Paul was the greatest apostle. Thati is all the evidence need to support the Premise Paul is viewed with greater significance. The question is, whether or not that significance is exaggerated.

​

Obviously, since, as I said, I had written to Greg (not you) as not to an atheist, but to a presumed (though bitter) believer in inspiration, your continuing press is irrelevant. I don't care whether another considers Paul the greatest. (I am no respecter of men. I don't hold preachers in high regard except to honor their commitment (as much as is there) to the truth.) The OP is not salient to the title. Nor vice-versa. Argue the OP, or argue the title.

Lol, you may have to rewrite the OP, "Greg"!

​

​

I know some self-identifying Christians assert Paul wrote his letters under the authority of God Himself but that is not proof of anything. I am, therefore, asking you to prove the assertion. Your answer will go directly toward answering the title inquiry and then the inquiry about who is more likely to know the truth about Paul (his original converts, his contemporaries, or those living centuries later who garner their understanding from modern sources).

Nope. Only if the the Bible is not written under the authority of God Himself, is the inquiry over who is more likely to know the truth about Paul relevant. And the fact that I can't prove the Bible is written under the authority of God Himself—particularly to one set on mocking the truth—one at enmity with God—is of no relevance either way as to the argument "Greg" is trying to press.

You have made a false start. Prove Paul's letters are NOT written under the authority of God Himself, and we can go from there. Your apparent attempt to do so from the wrong end is so far falling flat.

You said Paul wrote under God's authority. Show me the proof. In the absence of such proof I will conclude Post #2 is another example of Paul's significance being exaggerated.

Like that matters to me? Give me a rational argument.

Do you consider yourself fundamentalist (someone who believes they have had a personal conversion experience to follow Jesus and believes the Bible is the inspired word of God which is inerrant and to be read literally as sound exegesis warrants)?

I believe the originals are inerrant, and written under direct plenary verbal inspiration. However, I do believe sound exegesis will weed out the errors in the current editions and copies. And it certainly does weed out the apparent errors.

 

[makesends]

I did. I also provided proof Paul stating he was the least, not the greatest. Awaiting @JesusFan 's response.

The law of non-contradiction only refers to two contradictory statements that are [supposedly] true at the same time in the same sense.

 

[Josheb]

PosingasGreg

Then take Paul's word for both his preeminence and his humility.

2 Corinthians 11:16-33 [NASB]

16 Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if [you do,] receive me even as foolish, so that I also may boast a little. 17 What I am saying, I am not saying as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. 18 Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. 19 For you, being [so] wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. 20 For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, if anyone devours you, if anyone takes [advantage of] you, if anyone exalts himself, if anyone hits you in the face. 21 To [my] shame I [must] say that we have been weak [by comparison.] But in whatever respect anyone [else] is bold--I am speaking in foolishness--I too am bold. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ?--I am speaking as if insane--I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in [danger of] death. 24 Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine [lashes.] 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent [adrift] at sea. 26 [I have been] on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from [my] countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers at sea, dangers among false brothers; 27 [I have been] in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 Apart from [such] external things, there is the daily pressure on me [of] concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern? ​

​

30 If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, 33 and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and [so] escaped his hands.​

2 Corinthians 12:1-12 [NASB]

1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not beneficial; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows-- 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. 5 In behalf of such a man I will boast; but in my own behalf I will not boast, except regarding [my] weaknesses. 6 For if I do wish to boast I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth; but I refrain [from this,] so that no one will credit me with more than he sees [in] me or hears from me. 7 Because of the extraordinary [greatness] of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in distresses, in persecutions, in difficulties, in behalf of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong. ​

​

11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, since I was in no respect inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. 12 The distinguishing marks of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs, wonders, and miracles.​

So then, am I to understand Paul is his own witness?

The 2 Corinthians 11 text is a curious selection because Paul explicitly states he is NOT "saying as the Lord would," thereby indicating he was not at that moment writing under any supposedly inspiration or influence by God. He is providing his own personal opinion and doing so boastfully.

In chapter 12 Paul claims Paul is not lying. Paul claims God knows he is not lying. Paul claimed to have received "extraordinary revelations" but provides no proof to that effect. He then states he was not inferior to the "most eminent" apostles. The words "in no respect inferior" do not imply superiority or greater significance so, again, I am still wondering who can provide me with proof Paul was the greatest. Paul was equal to the most eminent, not superior to or greater than to the other apostles. Jesus is recorded to say he had his Father as a witness and, therefore, his personal witness shouldn't be considered proof of anything. His veracity relies on the witness of two, not solely himself. Even if we were to accept Paul+God in the same way we do Jesus+Father, can we say that is an equivalent comparison? Is Jesus equal to Jesus? Is Paul more significant than Jesus? Or is Paul's significance being exaggerated?

How would Paul's own witness about himself prove anything?

And I remind everyone of this: only the person making an assertion can speak for himself. While anyone may know an answer to any posted inquiry or comment, I am interested the answer provided by the one asked. The op is for everyone to answer. Not everyone thinks Paul was the greatest apostle (as was previously claimed), so they would not nor need provide proof of Paul's greater stature. Let's not forget the original inquiry pust to @JesusFan .....



Can proof Paul wrote his letters under the authority of God be provided?

Can proof Paul wrote his letters under the authority of God that does not exaggerate Paul's significance be provided?

 

[Josheb]

You have made a false start. Prove Paul's letters are NOT written under the authority of God Himself, and we can go from there.

Nope. The onus is on those claiming the Bible is a God-given sacred text and, therefore, different than any/all other books.

Extraordinary claims require proof. Furthermore, the questions asked could just as readily be posted by a Christian. Paul never claimed to be the greatest. God never declared Paul the greatest. Since we do not have the original documents, it is also a valid inquiry to ask whether those receiving the originals know more than those relying solely on comments about copies.

The law of non-contradiction only refers to two contradictory statements that are [supposedly] true at the same time in the same sense.

Yep. It is contradictory to say Paul is the greatest when Paul himself states he is the least and not in any way inferior to the others.

So where is the proof Paul wrote his letters under the authority of God? And if the other apostles also wrote their books under divine inspiration, then how is Paul more significant?

 

[makesends]

PosingasGreg

So then, am I to understand Paul is his own witness?

The 2 Corinthians 11 text is a curious selection because Paul explicitly states he is NOT "saying as the Lord would," thereby indicating he was not at that moment writing under any supposedly inspiration or influence by God. He is providing his own personal opinion and doing so boastfully.

Not that you wrote this to me, but.... Paul is "writing under the influence" (lolol) of God to say that he would be "providing his personal opinion and doing so boastfully." I use the quotes because that is your use of what it does say.

It is the same with any place where Scripture quotes anyone, or describes things that God is not saying. Similarly, in 1 Cor 7, Paul says,
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
Verse 10 and 11 is what Paul writes under God's direction.
Verse 12 (and, in my opinion 13) are written by Paul under his office as Apostle.
That he says so is said under God's direct inspiration. The Bible is not a superstitious set of statements to be held at arm's length. It is very earthy and 'natural' in its language and use, no matter how supernatural its derivation.

In chapter 12 Paul claims Paul is not lying. Paul claims God knows he is not lying. Paul claimed to have received "extraordinary revelations" but provides no proof to that effect. He then states he was not inferior to the "most eminent" apostles. The words "in no respect inferior" do not imply superiority or greater significance so, again, I am still wondering who can provide me with proof Paul was the greatest.

"Your" title doesn't ask if fundamentalists see Paul as the greatest. It only asks if they exaggerate his significance. Likewise, the OP.

Shoot—it doesn't even in the OP establish just what a fundamentalist is!

 

[makesends]

Nope. The onus is on those claiming the Bible is a God-given sacred text and, therefore, different than any/all other books.

Extraordinary claims require proof. Furthermore, the questions asked could just as readily be posted by a Christian. Paul never claimed to be the greatest. God never declared Paul the greatest.

I can't prove it. I can quote better men than I who give good reason to believe it, but that will not prove it to a bitter atheist. That doesn't mean the bitter atheist has a leg to stand on. If "you" want to defeat the opinions of believers, "you" need to do so on their terms. "Your" logic does not compute. "Your" OP, or maybe better I should say, what you hope to imply by your OP, depends on the notion that the Bible is not reliable in order to prove it is not reliable in order to [somehow] work around to the notion that Paul is no great shakes.

Since we do not have the original documents, it is also a valid inquiry to ask whether those receiving the originals know more than those relying solely on comments about copies.

I disagree here, too. The current copies and translations and criticisms and good exegesis are close enough to do the job.

Yep. It is contradictory to say Paul is the greatest when Paul himself states he is the least and not in any way inferior to the others.

It is bad form to require a fundamentalist (I guess, "me") to provide proof Paul is the greatest, when neither the title nor the OP imply nor ask it. I don't say it. Drop that when talking to me. What significance do you suppose I attribute to Paul, (which I presume "you" mean to prove invalid)?

So where is the proof Paul wrote his letters under the authority of God? And if the other apostles also wrote their books under divine inspiration, then how is Paul more significant?

"Your" need for proof the letters are written under the authority of God is irrelevant to the title. First prove me not a Fundamentalist, or prove
your OP relevant to the title.
The OP and title do not ask how Paul is more significant.

 

[atpollard]

So then, am I to understand Paul is his own witness?

This is the only point that I will address with "Greg" [If Paul's sarcasm was not comprehended, no amount of explanation by me will help] ...

Did not Paul himself explicitly state he was the least of them? Why should I take your word over Paul's?

... "Greg" had already accepted Paul as an "expert witness" on Paul. That is why I presented testimony from YOUR expert witness.

[Of course "the Real Greg" would never have seen anything that I posted since he placed me on "ignore"]

 

[Bruiser]

This is the only point that I will address with "Greg" [If Paul's sarcasm was not comprehended, no amount of explanation by me will help] ...


... "Greg" had already accepted Paul as an "expert witness" on Paul. That is why I presented testimony from YOUR expert witness.

[Of course "the Real Greg" would never have seen anything that I posted since he placed me on "ignore"]

Are y'all having fun?

 

[atpollard]

Are y'all having fun?

I am.

 

[Josheb]

This is the only point that I will address with "Greg" [If Paul's sarcasm was not comprehended, no amount of explanation by me will help] ...


... "Greg" had already accepted Paul as an "expert witness" on Paul. That is why I presented testimony from YOUR expert witness.

[Of course "the Real Greg" would never have seen anything that I posted since he placed me on "ignore"]

Perhaps. but my purpose is to do better than Greg, particularly in the arena of not committing the many fallacies he did.

There may, of course "fundamentalists" (a term he never defines, and with which some here may not identify) who exaggerate Paul's significance so it would be inappropriate to put all fundies in the same group and thereby assume facts or associations not in evidence. That being said, it is appropriate to ask whether any self-identifying Christian exaggerates Paul's significance, but the definition of "significance" ought to also be defined. Is "significance" ordinal or nominal? The lack of clarity got him into trouble, and it is not evident he was even aware of that problem.

The matter of Paul's relative productivity was addressed, at least in part. Paul "wins" if that is the metric to be used but that is not a very good measure of significance. I have written a lot more than Paul but nothing I have ever written (or published) has had the kind of influence Paul's letters have had. I doubt anyone, Christian, theist, or non-theist would say Paul's letter to the Romans wasn't a landmark theological work, or that anything in Christian history rivaled it in regard to influence (because, if nothing else, everyone after Paul was building on Paul in general and Romans in particular). The more problematic implication (not stated in these posts) is that Paul's letters stand alone. They do not. Paul was chronically quoting, citing, and otherwise referencing the whole of Tanakh. Just as later (uninspired) Christians built on Paul's work, so too did Paul build on others (including secular philosophers, as God, in our view, inspired him to do so. Furthermore, the claims made about Paul's inspiration apply to all other NT writers so Paul is no more or less significant than the others in that regard. We might even question what good any of his letters would do without a gospel. Paul, then, is dependent upon Matthew, or Mark, or Luke or John - one of them at a minimum.

So, right from the beginning Greg has committed a construction error by assuming Paul does/can stand alone in the mind of any Christian. The whole is larger than the sum of its parts.

Similarly, the inquiry about the understanding of those who knew Paul and his letters personally versus those in modernity who learn from secondhand and third-hand sources is a red herring because while it is true we lack the original letters written by Paul, the manuscript evidence provides more than sufficient evidence (not proof) to have scientific belief what we possess is an accurate record of what Paul wrote. There isn't another ancient writing as closely and critically examined as the Bible. Second place isn't even close. Furthermore, we do have authors who did live during and shortly after the dates of Paul's letters. They are sparce but nonetheless existent. Most importantly, though, the principles of exegesis provide a means of understanding Paul (and the other authors) as he and his original readers would have done in the first century. These rules are not always followed with consistency but 1) @Greg appears to be profoundly lacking in that knowledge and 2) that problem exists with fundamentalist/conservative as well as liberal readers of the Bible. Greg also appeared to lack an understanding of presuppositionalism, the overlap between religion/science, the validity of epistemological revelation, and the simple fact ours is a religion of faith, not just fact.

All the proof in the world would not persuade Greg.

He knew that before he joined, which made the entire week he spent here disingenuous.

I could have played devil's advocate with any of Greg's ops but this was one of the easiest and most applicable to all of us. Ima lay the devil's advocacy down now. Thanks, everyone, for indulging me.

 

[atpollard]

Before the topic closes (and with good reason), I thought I would take a shot at answering the "three" original questions ...

Although Paul founded the churches of Galatia, Galatians 1:6-9 has him cursing anybody who would disagree with his gospel. Reading the entire epistle reveals that at some point, residents of Galatia who had converted to Jesus through Paul eventually decided the Judaizer gospel was the truth, and so accepted it.

Setting aside the "do you still beat your wife" introduction.

Now what group is more likely to know truths about Paul not subject to interpretative-subjectivity: his original contemporary converts?

• The people living in Galatia in the first century that actually knew Paul are likely to know more about Paul (the man) than anyone that never actually met Paul (the man).

However, that is asking the wrong question. Knowing how Paul liked his lamb seasoned or the color of his favorite tunic or whether he was athletic as a child is not the issue. The question is what Paul believed and what Paul taught others to believe. For that we have Paul's many letters and scrolls (Romans being sort of long for a common letter).

• The one who knows the truth about Paul's Teachings is unrelated to WHEN and dependent on the Holy Spirit that open's eyes (and hearts and minds) to grant understanding as God so wills. That could be any one, any where and any when.

Or people who wouldn't be born for another 1900 years, who know precisely nothing about Paul except what they find in a collection of books that ancient supporters of Paul helped put together?

• Another flaw: GOD put together "the collection of books", not any ancient supporters of Paul. Paul teaches nothing in a vacuum, but is merely building upon the foundation of what has come before and what his contemporaries were recording.
• Scripture is better able to both interpret and affirm the veracity of other scripture than either contemporary or modern scholars of Paul.

How could Paul be "greatest" on the basis of the Lord giving him revelation, when the Lord gave John the revelation called the Book of Revelation?

• ("revelation" corrected to a small "r")
• I would like to address this (Paul is the greatest) from a very personal point of view. Paul, per scripture, is the "Apostle to the Gentiles. At the time Paul was a missionary, my "fathers" were not in the Holy Land. My people were worshiping "Woden" in the mountains of Wales and "Thor" in the fjords of Scandinavia. They were people of the sea. They were violent people whose prayer was "Let me die in battle, a sword in my hand and the bodies of my enemies piled high around me". Paul never reached my people. We stood against the Romans and forced them to build walls. We swept along the coast and pillaged villages and monasteries with impunity. Eventually, the people that Paul reached, finally reached my people - and changed everything. [THAT alone, in my opinion, makes Paul the greatest of the apostles ... for my people.]
• What Paul did for my father's people did not reach my family. Ten generations of Welsh Blackmiths lived and died deaf from the hammer and surrounded by neighbors that died in coal mines. My great grandfather died in a plague in the worker housing outside a shipyard and his son fled indentured servitude, crossed the Atlantic and nearly died on Ellis Island at 9 years old. My grandfather became a chemist just before WW2 and trusted in "doing good" rather than any God. My father trusted in nothing at all (a true atheist wasting no effort on religion). God snatched me from the streets and "active nihilism" to claim me for his own. For me, the words of Bertrand Russel ("The evidence of contemporary christian life is such that god, if he ever existed, must surely be dead.") rang so true that "Church" had almost nothing to do with my salvation ... it was the writings of John and Paul that introduced me to the God that had chosen me. So for me, John and Paul are the greatest Apostles because GOD chose me but THEY PERSONALLY taught me about Him.

So there is my answer to @Greg 's three questions.