Scripture ended with the OT. Subsequent writings have to understood by the help of the Holy Spirit. Whatever writings that don't remind of Jesus' preaching or go against it should be rejected.
Sorry but I'm not interested in subsequent writings.
Maybe I should read a few of them to find out what they say, and maybe one day I will. But if they are not in Scripture, then there was a reason for leaving them out. And I'm not talking so much about the Apocrypha, but about books like "the Gospel of Peter" or "Gospel of Thomas".
The Holy Spirit inspired the books and letters to be written and he showed men which books and letters to include in the canon of Scripture. He, the Spirit of truth, inspired God's word - which reveals God - to be written down.
A chosen one is also sent. But that won't fetch apostleship!
Like I say, you're obsessed with the word Apostle!
Paul is JESUS' chosen one - but you still accuse him of writing white lies, having his own agenda, trying to promote himself and other things too. Then you say you only trust some of his writings. If he is untrustworthy, then everything he says is suspect; how do you know when he is telling the truth? If he writes white lies, then Jesus chose a liar.
The fact is that Paul was chosen by Jesus, preached Jesus, lived for Jesus, taught what Jesus taught and died for Jesus. You seem to be ignoring these facts because they don't suit your position, which is that Paul is a false teacher.
Don't underestimate Satan who is still diverting many from the truth. It is easy to distract with the play of words and declare equality!
That's a rather convenient way of avoiding the question.
I asked, what gives YOU the right to judge and condemn Paul when neither the other apostles, nor God himself, did so. IF Paul made false claims about himself, then it was up to Peter or James, as head of the church, or the Lord Jesus, whose church it is and who is the supreme head, to rebuke him and write to all his churches to tell them so that they were not led away from the faith. But this did not happen; quite the opposite in fact. Peter and the 12 welcomed and accepted Paul; Peter later called him a brother and urged people to accept his writings.
The early church had problems with Judaisers, Gnostics and other false teachers - Paul was not one of them. So again, if they did not have a problem with it, how do you have the right to say that he was false? I'm not playing with words, I'm asking you a simple question. If you do not have an answer; that's fine. At least then everyone will know.