Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.

Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.

Many people, especially Protestants, are more "Paulines" than "Christians."

It doesn't matter how many explicit statements about doctrine could have been added to the scriptures, heretics like Luther and Calvin would have still found a way to interpret scripture in a perverse manner to suit their theology. Heretics have always reinterpreted even the most plainly clear passages of scripture to support their novel ideas. This is a pride problem, not a contents of scripture problem.

Yes, it's a bit like how leftist see the constitution as a "living docuмent" meaning you can interpret any way you want for one's ends. They twist and contort the wording so free speech doesn't include "hate speech" and the right to privacy surely includes unlimited wanton infanticide. 
I recall how a one Barry Sotero, the constitutional law scholar from Harvard, claimed that the 2nd amendment was intended for hunters! It appears he forgot that an armed citizenenry just waged a war against a tyrannical government shortly before the constitution was written.

 

And I thought all of scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit no matter who exactly wrote it. Paul even calls himself an apostle of Christ, and of course we know this story as told in Acts. An apostle is someone who is called, taught, and sent by Christ.

Jesus was with apostles for 3 years and did not write anything as far as we know.  The four gospels are written or dictated by people who were with Jesus during that time.  Then Jesus left us.   

Duh ya think?

Did you want the New Testament to end there?

Your question is retarded as it potentially becomes a circular argument (which is a logical fallacy), if addressed. Moreover, by your question, you sound as if you believe in "hermeneutic of continuity". So you "trads" out there who (rightfully) reject HoC, you're hypocrites for pointing and shaking your fingers at me for starting this thread.

Paul was one of Jesus' biggest converts.  His story is amazing.  Why would it be strange for him to write prolifically after his conversion?  Why would Paul not be inspired by the Holy Spirit to write to others to help them become Catholic?

This is not a logical response to my question. It's not strange for him to write prolifically. I didn't say it was, nor did I question Paul being inspired by the Holy Spirit to help convert people to Christ. That's what saints do. They give their testimonies to help people convert but it's not included in Biblical canon like Paul's. I said it's peculiar that there are a lot more of Paul's text than quotes and direct teachings of Jesus Christ. So I'll ask, again: Why are there far more of Paul's texts than actual quotes and direct teachings by Jesus in the NT? Jesus should have more because He is Our Lord and Savior. He is whole. He is truth. To have a mere man come in on the scene after Jesus goes to Heaven, and have that man's letters become Biblical canon and outnumber what Jesus is quoted as saying while He dwelt among us, suggests some sort of discrepancy. If this wasn't the Bible under analysis, then it would only be reasonable to consider that what was started by the source wasn't sufficient, therefore, an addition had to be made outside of the source to make it complete; or the addition is some sort of hidden malevolence meant to corrupt those using it. Because there is no point in adding something if it's already complete and contains the whole truth or is working at 100% performance. So, back to the Bible, why would God have to make an addition to what His Son contributed? God is all-powerful. He easily could've finished the Bible by what His Son lived and spoke on earth.

Catholics refer to “Paul” as Saint Paul. Protestants tend to use just his given name. God gave us this great Saint as an example and to instruct us in the Faith, it’s not for us to question God’s wisdom and his ways. The OP is almost suggesting that God made some sort of mistake. From the OP’s second post he makes it somewhat clear that this is not the case, but I’m not understanding why a Catholic would ask such a question.

That's not an answer. So the question still stands and waits to be answered.

Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.

I believe this was already answered in sacred scripture itself.

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." -John 21:25, Douay Rheims Bible

I think the simple answer is that if Christ had written most of the New Testament, then anti-catholics could've easily attacked it as narcissistic and cultish.  It would've come across as some kind of weird manifesto by some "loner".  It could've been easily labled as the thoughts of a 'one person movement'.

The fact that the gospel was written by
a.  Simple folk (i.e. apostles who were working-class)
b.  former enemies (i.e. Paul, who first persecuted the christians)
c.  educated classes (i.e.  St Luke was a doctor and St Matthew was a tax collector).
d.  All of these people (a cross section of society) died horrible deaths in support of Christ.

God knows what He is doing.  The way the gospel was written 
a.  gives the most evidence for veracity (the people who wrote it all died in an effort to support it...and no one dies for a lie), 
b.  gives the least amount of bias (a cross-section of people followed Christ, which shows it was not some localized cult but a movement with a foundation), and
c.  provides the most amount of historical evidence (since all of these people can be verified and have different perspectives/writing styles).