No, I didnt say that. Only a prophet can speak the revealed Word of G-d. In the original Hebrew, that is exactly what the word for "prophet" means. The apostles, though much more than mere scribes, did act as scribes for a prophet (which Himself was much more than a prophet). Likewise, John would seem to BE a prophet, since it was of him that Jesus said "Among those born of woman, there has arisen none greater."
Paul's really the only question, and it's only questionable as he appears to contradict what is said elsewhere in the Bible. G-d's Word cannot conflict with G-d's Word. If ANYone, Malachi, Jude, even Jesus, came along preaching something other than what the Word of G-d had said all along, that person would clearly be wrong, as scripture cannot conflict with scripture. But none of those people did say anything against scripture.
Paul, however, is used all the time, to justify apostasy from a Biblical lifestyle, and this is precisely what makes his teachings questionable. Now I have Messianic friends that would say Paul simply gets a bad rap, that he never was anti-Torah, and his teachings are simply twisted to portray him as such, and justify the apostasy that ended up happening in his name.
Either way, in the earliest days after Messiah came, there were three basic divisions.. the Messianics, which lived and worshipped among other Jews... The Gnostics, which were their own special brand of wierdness... and the Paulines, which were just another denomination until the birth of the Catholic church made theirs the official position, and put his writings into the Bible.
